Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-27.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:18:45 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks of the IETF.

        Title           : Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
        Authors         : Stan Ratliff
                          Shawn Jury
                          Darryl Satterwhite
                          Rick Taylor
                          Bo Berry
	Filename        : draft-ietf-manet-dlep-27.txt
	Pages           : 78
	Date            : 2017-01-24

Abstract:
   When routing devices rely on modems to effect communications over
   wireless links, they need timely and accurate knowledge of the
   characteristics of the link (speed, state, etc.) in order to make
   routing decisions.  In mobile or other environments where these
   characteristics change frequently, manual configurations or the
   inference of state through routing or transport protocols does not
   allow the router to make the best decisions.  DLEP describes a new
   protocol for a bidirectional, event-driven communication channel
   between the router and the modem to facilitate communication of
   changing link characteristics.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-27

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-manet-dlep-27

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:35:25 +0100

Hi,

I am a bit worried about the "secure" flag being pulled into the main
RFC... security comes in different "flavors", which could be an
excellent point in writing a DLEP extension where the radio informs
the router about the security concerns (per radio channel, per client,
...) and maybe even gives the router an information how to send
secured/unsecured frames.

Just a single bit is not really that helpful.

If we need more revisions for DLEP we should work on making them
leaner, not heavier.

Henning Rogge

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:18 PM,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Rick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:23:23 +0000

Henning,

I take your point that the 'Secured Medium' flag does not give any
fine-grained information about what security is applied on the over-
the-air signalling.

It was added to address an entirely valid DISCUSS, where it was pointed
out that a router has no idea whether to blindly trust the remote
destination information, or whether some kind of deployment specific
restriction should be applied.

The alternative approach was to add *more* specificity, i.e. extra Data
Items and specification of over-the-air signalling, and/or arbitrary
restrictions on what data items could/should be trusted or not.  This
approach was discarded as it just added more 'weight' that would be
better addressed in extensions.

The 'Secure Medium' flag is not a panacea, and purely acts as a simple
canary for use in unplanned/ad-hoc deployments.  An extension draft
that addresses specific security aspects, for example 802.11
WEP/WPA/etc modes, is indeed more useful.

In short: we believe the 'Secured Medium' flag is a compromise of least
impact.

Cheers,

Rick