Subject: mboned: Comments to draft-ietf-mboned-rac-issues-03.txt (long message)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 10:37:41 +0100

Dear Authors,

I have the following comments on the draft-ietf-mboned-rac-issues-03.txt

1. I am not very clear of the main aim of this document. The 1st line of the
abstract says “… evaluate to which current multicasting protocols can be used
to address common requirements…”.
The title mentions the document should be addressing issues concerning with only
access control, but the multicast protocols (IGMP/MLD) were anyways not designed
to offer any access control. So I am not sure what we mean by issues for access
control for multicast protocols. This document on the other hand actually
targets more on the architectural issues for providing access control for
multicast.

2. There seems to be a “chicken and the egg” situation here. The abstract of the
document mentions that this document recommends for requirements to be defined
for the framework. But then it references this requirements document
(draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt) everywhere, especially everywhere in
section 4.
I think the requirements document as the name suggests should highlight all the
access control related requirements, and then this document should compare the
different architectures to see if they meet the requirements.

3. The issues highlighted in Section 4 are more like the access control
requirements and hence should be put only in the requirements document
(draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt) and not repeated here.

4. I think as pointed in point 3) the issues highlighted in Section 4 should be
put only in the requirements document (draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt) and
not repeated here. This document should target more on the architectural issues
for multicast and on comparison of the different architectures to meet these
requirements.  I think this ID should change its title to “Architectural issues
related to receiver access control for Multicast networks” and rewrite the
abstract to emphasise on the aims/goals of the document

5. Regarding section 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5, I think we should specify who requires
the capability to distinguish between receivers/users.

6. I am not sure of the reason to put the architecture in Section 5.1 IGMP/MLD
as this will not anyways provide any access control. We should be comparing
different architectures that provide access control mechanism.

7. Section 5.2 needs to be re-written. It is not clear why the router and the L2
switch are both present. This L2SW is 802.1x compatible and should also act as a
RADIUS client and hence would provide port based authentication. But his only
provides authentication for network access.  How does this authenticate the
user to access the multicast source? Also how does the router get triggered to
download the ACL? Does it sniff/intercept the RADIUS ACCESS-ACCPET messages
sent back from the L2 Auth to the 802.1x switch?

Also in the second papra of section 5.2 it states “…For example, users which are
not on the ACL are rejected”. Which is meant by this? What does the ACL here
signify- Access rights to the network or the access rights to the multicast
data? The ACL has nothing to do with the access rights to the network, as if
the user is not authenticated, then the L2Auth would have already send a
RADIUS_REJECT message. And as there will not be an authenticated port for this
user on the switch then anyways this user cannot send a JOIN message to the
router. And on the other hand, I do not think that the ACL should address the
access rights for the multicast session.

8. The document only (just) mentions IGMP/MLD but does not even state the MSEC
protocols of GDOI/GSAKMP/MIKEY etc that have been designed to provide security
services for multicast. Atleast these should be mentioned in the section 5.4

9. Typo error: Page 6, 1st paragraph “The memo draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-04.txt
[3 , reffered …”. Change the draft name to draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt
and put [3].

10. Typo error in section 4.5.1- “For detail on the topic please refer to
MACCNT-draft [3], 4.6 Accounting….”  Change 4.6 to Section 4 point 5 (or to
4.5)

11. The header on Pager 13 shows draft-ietf-mboned-rac-issues-01.txt. Please
change draft number to 03.

Regards
Prashant

-- 
Prashant Pillai
Research Assistant
School of Engineering, Design and Technology
University of Bradford
Bradford, BD7 1DP
West Yorkshire
United Kingdom
Phone: 0044-1274-233720
email: [email-masked]
------------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://webmail.brad.ac.uk
To report misuse from this email address forward the message
and full headers to [email-masked]
------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/