Subject: [Capwap] Issue 31: Peer Authorization is optional

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:42:36 -0800

The draft currently makes peer authorization optional. We need to make
it 
mandatory, but allow for the authorization to be lightweight (e.g.,
check 
against an ACL that has a default permit rule).

The text is:

   Authorize to DTLS Teardown (k):  This transition occurs to notify the
      DTLS stack that the session should be aborted.

      WTP:  This state transition occurs when the WTP was unable to
         authorize the AC, using the AC credentials.  The WTP then
         aborts the DTLS session by invoking the DTLSAbortSession
         command (see Section 2.3.2.1).

      AC:  This state transition occurs when the AC was unable to
         authorize the WTP, using the WTP credentials.  The AC then
         aborts the DTLS session by invoking the DTLSAbortSession
         command (see Section 2.3.2.1).

PatC
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

---

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:51:01 -0800

All,

I had included the wrong text from version 8 of the draft below. The
broken
text follows. The issue, once more, was the reference to forgoing the
authorization check.

<old text>
   Authorize to DTLS Connect (j):  This transition occurs to notify the
      DTLS stack that the session should be established.

      WTP:  This state transition occurs when the WTP has either opted
         to forgo the authorization check of the AC's credentials, or
         the credentials were successfully authorized.  This is done by
         invoking the DTLSAccept DTLS command (see Section 2.3.2.1).

      AC:  This state transition occurs when the AC has either opted to
         forgo the authorization check of the WTP's credentials, or the
         credentials were successfully authorized.  This is done by
         invoking the DTLSAccept DTLS command (see Section
2.3.2.1).</old text>

We are fixing this by making the authorization phase mandatory, and
providing
some guidance on the authorization process:

<text>
   Authorize to DTLS Connect (g):  This transition occurs to notify the
      DTLS stack that the session should be established.

      WTP:  This state transition occurs when the WTP has successfully
         authorized the AC's credentials (see Section 2.4.4).  This is
         done by invoking the DTLSAccept DTLS command (see
         Section 2.3.2.1).

      AC:  This state transition occurs when the AC has successfully
         authorized the WTP's credentials (see Section 2.4.4).  This is
         done by invoking the DTLSAccept DTLS command (see
         Section 2.3.2.1).

2.4.4.3.  Certificate Usage
[...]
   ACs and WTPs MUST authorize (e.g. through access control lists)
   certificates of devices to which they are connecting, e.g., based on
   the isuer, MAC address, or organizational information specified in
   the certificate.  The identities specified in the certificates bind a
   particular DTLS session to a specific pair of mutually-authenticated
   and authorized MAC addresses.  The particulars of authorization
   filter construction are implementation details which are, for the
   most part, not within the scope of this specification.  However, at
   minimum, all devices MUST verify that the appropriate EKU bit is set
   according to the role of the peer device (AC vs. WTP), and that the
   issuer of the certificate is appropriate for the domain in question.

</text>

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) 
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 12:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Capwap] Issue 31: Peer Authorization is optional

The draft currently makes peer authorization optional. We need to make
it mandatory, but allow for the authorization to be lightweight (e.g.,
check against an ACL that has a default permit rule).

The text is:

PatC

---

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:21:10 -0800

I am closing this issue as no additional comments have been received
since the text was proposed.

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Capwap] Issue 31: Peer Authorization is optional

All,

I had included the wrong text from version 8 of the draft below. The
broken text follows. The issue, once more, was the reference to forgoing
the authorization check.

<old text>

We are fixing this by making the authorization phase mandatory, and
providing some guidance on the authorization process:

<text>

</text>

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 12:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Capwap] Issue 31: Peer Authorization is optional

The text is:

PatC