Subject: [Geopriv] Radius-Geopriv: CDMA operator-name prefix / registry

From: Tschofenig Hannes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:22:15 +0100

hi all, 

the operator-name lead to a long discussion on the mailing list. the
discussion is far too long to copy-and-paste it into this mail. hence, we
only show the proposed resolution of the issue:

The previously used attribute is split into two attributes. Below you find
the new text  including the relevant parts of the IANA section:

"
5.1  Operator-Type Attribute

   This attribute contains an operator type which combined with the
   Operator-Name attribute serves to uniquely identify the ownership of
   an access network.  The attribute value is a four octet integer.
   This document defines three values for this attribute: 1 (GSM), 2
   (CDMA), and 3 (REALM).  Additional values require an IANA
   registration and MUST be associated with an organization responsible
   for assigning/managing the operator names.

   The GSM operator type can be used to indicate operator names based on
   GSMA TADIG codes.  The TADIG Working Group within the GSM Association
   is the authority responsible for issuing unique Operator-Name values
   for operators of this type.

   The CDMA operator type can be used to indicate operator names based
   on the Home Network Identifier (HNI).  The HNI is the concatenation
   of the 3-digit Mobile Country Code (MCC) and 3-digit Mobile Network
   Code (MNC).  The IMSI Oversight Council (IOC) is the authority
   responsible for issuing unique Operator-Name values for operators of
   this type.

   The REALM operator type can be used to indicate operator names based
   on any registered domain name.  The Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA) or registered delegate is the authority responsible
   for issuing unique Operator-Name values for operators of this type.

5.2  Operator-Name Attribute

   This attribute contains an operator name which combined with the
   Operator-Type attribute serves to uniquely identifies the ownership
   of an access network.  The attribute value is a non-NULL terminated
   string whose Length MUST NOT exceed 253 bytes.  The attribute value
   uniquely identifies the operator name within the scope of the
   operator type.

"

15.  IANA Considerations

   The authors request that the Attribute Types, and Attribute Values
   defined in this document be registered by the Internet Assigned
   Numbers Authority (IANA) from the RADIUS name spaces as described in
   the "IANA Considerations" section of RFC 2865 [1], in accordance with
   BCP 26 [9].

15.1  Operator Type

   This document also defines a new registry for the Operator-Type
   attribute.  Initially, IANA is requested to register the following
   values and associated registry owners for the operator namespace:

        +-----+-----------+----------------------------+
        |  #  | Namespace | Registry Owner             |
        +-----+-----------+----------------------------+
        |  1  | GSM       | GSM Association: TADIG WG  |
        |  2  | CDMA      | IMSI Oversight Council     |
        |  3  | REALM     | IANA or delegate           |
        +-----------------+----------------------------+

   Following the policies outlined in [9] new Operator-Types will be
   assigned after Expert Review by the Geopriv working group or its
   designated successor.
"

does this meet your expectations? 

ciao
hannes

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 08:46:27 -0500

This creates the requirement that IANA maintain a registry of operators.
Why not declare that any entity that owns a domain name by proper 
delegation (reference DNS documents) may use that string as a realm?
That avoids creating yet another registry.

It would also seem sensible, given such a strategy, to at least comment on 
why the other two values are necessary.  After all, any operator in the 
other two spaces also has a domain name.

If we are going to allow the other two name spaces, then can we have a 
reference to a public document containing the binding of identifier to 
entity, so that one may build interoperable implementations?

Thank you,
Joel M. Halpern

At 05:22 AM 3/2/2005, Tschofenig Hannes wrote:
>--
>to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
>the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
>archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:02:05 +0200

Hi Hannes,

I think your text is good. Just one nit about the REALM-case,
I think it would more sense to tie this to DNS in the same way
as is done NAIs.

>   for issuing unique Operator-Name values for operators of this type.
Suggested text: replace last sentence with "Such names are
required to be unique and the rights to use a given realm name
are obtained coincident with acquiring the rights to use a
particular Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN). "

--Jari