Subject: [Geopriv] Comments on draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00.txt

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:05:48 -0500

Here is my review of  the draft.
Barbara

Substantive Comments
---------------------------------------
3.2 Moving Network
Recommend replacing the entire text of 3.2 with the following:
<begin text>
One example of a moving network is a WiMAX fixed wireless scenario. This
also applies to "pre-WiMAX" and "WiMAX-like" fixed wireless networks. In
implementations intended to provide broadband service to a home or other
stationary location, the customer-side antenna / NTE tends to be rather
small and portable. The LAN-side output of this device is an Ethernet
jack, which can be used to feed a PC or a router. The PC or router then
uses DHCP or PPPoE to connect to the access network, the same as for
wired access networks. Access providers who deploy this technology may
use the same core network (including network elements that terminate
PPPoE and provide IP addresses) for DSL, fiber to the premises (FTTP),
and fixed wireless customers.

Given that the customer antenna is portable and can be battery-powered,
it is possible for a user to connect a laptop to it and move within the
coverage area of a single base antenna. This coverage area can be many
square kilometers in size. In this case, the laptop (and any SIP client
running on it) would be completely unaware of their mobility. Only the
user and the network are aware of the laptop's mobility.

Further examples of moving networks (where end devices may not be aware
that they are moving) can be found in busses, trains, and airplanes.

Figure 2 shows an example topology for a moving network.
<end text>
-----------------------------------------------------------
6. VPN Considerations
When the titles of the subsections were changed from the original
proposed text, I think something was lost. 
The original title of section 6.1 was "Internet traffic does not go
through the VPN". This was changed to "VPN Tunneled Internet Traffic",
which means the exact opposite of the original title. 
6.2 was changed from "All IP traffic goes through the VPN,
communications application and VPN client are in the same device" to
"VPN Client and End Point Physically Co-Located". This loses half the
original intent.
6.3 was similarly changed. 
Since the working titles were definitely too long, but the current
titles are inaccurate, I recommend changing the titles to "Scenario 1",
"Scenario 2", and "Scenario 3", and then adding a new paragraph in each
section.
6.1 Scenario 1
Scenario 1 is the case where Internet traffic does not go through the
VPN. Only traffic intended for the private network goes across the VPN.
6.2 Scenario 2
Scenario 2 is the case where all IP traffic goes through the VPN, and
the communications application and VPN client are in the same device.
6.3 Scenario 3
Scenario 3 is the case where all IP traffic goes through the VPN, and
the communications application and VPN client are on separate devices.

Hopefully these changes will make the VPN text a little clearer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7. LbyR
Given we now have a separate LbyR draft, I would prefer to see the last
2 paragraphs of this section removed from this LCP document. This LCP
doc can then reference the LbyR doc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.1 Security Threat, 2nd to last sentence
Perhaps reword this to:
"Therefore, the topic of signatures on the location information was
deemed separate from the requirements for the geopriv L7 LCP."
If there's going to be a separate effort to figure out how to sign a
PIDF-LO, or do signing of locations in general, then I would prefer if
Section 8.2 were removed to that draft, and if this document simply
referenced that document. The discussion is good, and needed to be
captured. And now maybe it can be given a good home.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see the NENA Location TID referenced in this document as
a source of additional requirements. I think it's important to somehow
note that any solution set that doesn't meet the NENA requirements is
likely not to be accepted by the industry elements that created those
requirements.

Would it be useful to have some discussion of the LIS-LIS and OBO
scenarios in this document? We may not have agreement yet as to whether
or not the LCP MUST or SHOULD or MAY support them, but at least it would
be good to define them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Purely editorial and other not-very-substantive comments

3.1, First sentence
Since we genericized this section and the figure (so they aren't
specific to DSL), I would prefer if the first sentence read "The
following figure shows a fixed-wired access network scenario ..."

3.1, p. 7
Recommend rewording paragraph that begins "Current Customer Premises
Network..." to "Current Customer Premises Network (CPN) deployments
generally fall into one of the following classifications:"

3.1, p.7, item 1. 
Recommend changing "CPE - Single PC" to "Single PC"

3.3 
I don't understand the following sentence in the first paragraph:
"The access equipment us, in many cases, link layer devices."

4. first paragraph, last sentence
Change "discovery" to "discover"

Last paragraph, including list items
Recommend rewording:
The LIS discovery procedure raises deployment and security issues. The
access network needs to be designed to prevent man-in-the-middle
adversaries from presenting themselves as a LIS to end hosts. When an
end host discovers a LIS, it needs to ensure (and be able to ensure)
that the discovered entity is indeed an authorized LIS.

5., p13,  2nd to last paragraph on the page, last sentence
Delete "for"

p14, Host Identifier
change "an mapping" to "a mapping"

p16, 2nd to last paragraph
change "Premise" to "Premises"
change "as shown in as shown in" to "as shown in"

7., p21, first paragraph after the list
Change "currently" to "current"
Recommend rewording "The Target uses this service boundary to location
filters an updates the subscription." to something like 
"The Target uses this service boundary as a location filter that
determines when it needs to do another LoST query."

8.1 3rd paragraph
Change "an Target" to "a Target"

8.2.2, 1st paragraph
Change beginning to "In many cases, authenticating calls, i.e.,
verifying the caller's identity is at least as useful..."

p26, 1st paragraph
Change "turing" to "Turing"
Change "regardless of how they look like" to either "regardless of how
they look" or "regardless of what they look like"
Change "...if you can separate" to "...if calls can be separated"

2nd paragraph
Change "...catching a malicious caller and the number..." to
"...catching a malicious caller. Also, the number..."

8.2.2 last paragraph
Delete an instance of "for example"
9.
Requirement L7-4
Change "The L3 provider operates the LIS and needs to obtain..." to "The
L3 provider operates the LIS that the Target queries. It, in turn, needs
to obtain ..."

Requirement L7-5
Change "an DSL" to "a DSL"

10.2, Time-Shifting
Change to "Trudy pretends to be at a location where she was a while
ago."

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA623

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