Subject: [Mipshop] gauging consensus on threat analysis and security model for IP-based discovery and transport of 802.21 MIIS

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:53:44 -0700 (PDT)

Folks,

We'd like to gauge consensus on this deliverable which we added as a result of the 
WG meeting in Paris this summer:
 
   Produce a threat analysis and security model for IP-based discovery and
   transport of IEEE 802.21 Media-Independent Information Services for 
   advancement as Informational RFC

The complete draft charter (to be submitted soon to the ADs) is at:

http://www.geocities.com/gabriel_montenegro_2000/mipshop-charter.htm

All the deliverables are listed under the "Scope" section of that draft charter.

Comments?

-co-chairs

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

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:35:24 +1000

Hi,

> All the deliverables are listed under the "Scope" section of that draft charter.

We've got a draft -01 of a document to be submitted tonight/tomorrow,
which addresses some potential use cases of IS.

This may assist discussion on the threat models.

Greg

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:19:50 +0200

>    advancement as Informational RFC

Gabriel, thanks for asking.

I would wait a little more before doing threat analysis for IP-based
discovery and transport of IEEE 802.21 MIIS.  Because I have no idea
what the IP-based discovery and transport of 802.21 MIIS is, actually.

I would personally not be inclined to support this WG item now, even if
targetting INFORMATIONAL status, unless a clear idea about what
"IP-based discovery" is exists.

However, if a NED/CARD/Other IP protocol is under development for 802.21
purposes, I'd strongly recommend that protocol have a meaningful
Security Considerations section, and I'd be ready to review.

My personal oppinion,

Alex

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:14:34 -0700

I think this depends on what the WG intends to do with 802.21 in general. I 
don't think the security can be independent of the requirements, 
architecture, and, ultimately, protocol.

So I think we first need to get agreement on that before we decide to do 
this specific item. So far, there seems to be a pretty wide divergence of 
opinion on what to do for 802.21.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "gabriel montenegro" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: [Mipshop] gauging consensus on threat analysis and security 
modelfor IP-based discovery and transport of 802.21 MIIS

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:33:23 -0400

I have several comments (if some of my comments were already
addressed, please ignore them):

[1] The charter seems to be unfocused and overloaded.  Just counting
the number of I-Ds in the goals and milestones, it's 10.  I think the
WG is quite overloaded compared to its previous achievement (2 RFCs
and 1 I-D).  I'd suggest the charter to be more focused to achieve
specific goals on time.  My comments [2] and [3] below might be used
for reducing the number of work items.

[2] In the following text:

  "Streamline and refine the current FMIPv6 specification. Some of
  this work (i.e., that related to information elements and their
  transport) may be done in collaboration with IEEE 802.21 (see item 5
  below). Note: eventually, FMIPv6 may also use the related Command
  and Event Services, but the initial focus will be on Information
  Services."

We should not talk about possibility of collaboration of FMIPv6 and
802.21 before requirements of 802.21 IS becomes clear. So far nothing
has been discussed in IEEE 802.21 WG about such collaboration.

IMO, just stopping at "Streamline and refine the current FMIPv6
specification." is sufficient, since I saw a lot of email exchanges in
MOBOPTS just to address FMIPv6 clarifications.

[3] In the following text:

"
Work on the application of FMIPv6 on two examples link-layers for
advancement as Informational RFCs:

    * IEEE 802.16e (and WiMax), and
    * 3G CDMA 2K networks
"

Since IEEE 802.16e and WiMax document are accessible for member only,
I don't know how IETF can work with 802.16e and WiMax unless their
document is available to the IETF.  (802.21 may also need to make the
working draft accessible to the IETF members.)

I was not able to find a FMIPv6 dependency in 3GPP2 at
http://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/IETF/IETF_dependencies.cfm.  Is there
any FMIPv6 dependency in 3GPP2?  If not, why this should be a WG item?
The same question for IEEE 802.16e and WiMax?

[4] In the following text:

"
Produce the required protocol enhancements or specifications for
IP-based support of Media-Independent Information Services. This will
be the initial focus, although eventually, additional work on Command
and Event Services may be added.
"

Depending on 802.21 requirements, there is another possibility in
which some existing protocol is used as it is and no additional
enhancements or specification of IP-based MIIS transport is needed.
This could be the case for example if 802.21 adopts XML-based approach
and http is used as its transport.  So I think we might need an
additional step in the charter for "Determining whether protocol
enhancements or specifications needs to be developed".

Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:55:36 -0700

> MOBOPTS just to address FMIPv6 clarifications.

You probably meant MIPSHOP (not MOBOPTS)..

> working draft accessible to the IETF members.)

This concern was also brought up during the 16ng BOF discussion.

> The same question for IEEE 802.16e and WiMax?

There was none in IEEE 802.11 when FMIPv6-over-802.11 was done. I
thought the idea was to illustrate how L2-L3 protocol interaction worked
so that folks can go build the protocol on particular systems. These are
Informational however, as I understand.

-Rajeev

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:31:47 -0400

> You probably meant MIPSHOP (not MOBOPTS)..

You are right.

> Informational however, as I understand.

If it is Informational, FMIPv6 over X work could be deferred until the
streamline and refine the current FMIPv6 specification is done, if the
workload of the WG is a concern.

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:47:52 -0700

> workload of the WG is a concern.

I guess the on-going work on FMIP-over-foo indicates that L2 - L3
interaction can be specified without depending on "streamlining and
refining". Of course one would expect revisions with Informationals too
as part of natural ID cycle.

-Rajeev

---

From: Heejin Jang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:08:31 +0900

Hi, Ohba.

Regarding the dependency of FMIPv6 over 802.16, 
as you know, the FMIPv6 is designed to show better 
performance with the support of L2 information.

For e.g, in 802.16 network, if the FMIPv6 can know
the completion of 802.16 network entry, it can send the FNA ASAP 
after that, which finally influences on the HO performance, the goal of fmipv6.
Therefore, I think that some work for FMIPv6 over 802.16 is necessary 
and important in Mipshop. 

Thanks for your interests.

Regards,
Heejin.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:59:19 -0700

I'm a bit concerned here about making the "FMIP over foo" drafts 
informational. If they are not standards-track, there is possible room for 
differences in implemenation that could down the line lead to 
interoperability issues. I would note that the "IP over foo" RFCs are 
typically standards-track when they provide a specification of how to 
implement the protocol on a particular link layer, and informational when 
they deal with other issues, such as frameworks or considerations outside of 
actual protocol implementation.

Does anyone else have a similar concern?

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rajeev Koodli" <[email-masked]>
To: "Yoshihiro Ohba" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "gabriel montenegro" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] gauging consensus on threat analysis and security 
modelfor IP-based discovery and transport of 802.21 MIIS

---

From: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:23:22 +0900

I am leaning to Jak concern.

For instance, current MIPSHOP charter is saying that FMIP6 aims to be a Standard Track from Experimental. Along with this task, FMIP6 over foo could be considered as the same track. It seems easier to implement FMIP6 over foo than Experimental/Informational.

Regards,

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.

---

From: "Junghoon Jee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:40:30 +0900

Hi Yoshihiro and Rajeev.

> > thought the idea was to illustrate how L2-L3 protocol interaction 
> > worked so that folks can go build the protocol on 
> particular systems. 
> > These are Informational however, as I understand.
> 
> If it is Informational, FMIPv6 over X work could be deferred 
> until the streamline and refine the current FMIPv6 
> specification is done, if the workload of the WG is a concern.

I think parallel working of FMIPv6 PS and FMIPv6 over foo is possible and
helpful, 
because FMIPv6's spec can be more complete under considering its
applicability to various link situations.

Thanks,
Junghoon

---

From: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:30:34 +0900

> Hi Daniel,
> 
> I guess I'd be interested in figuring out if people want
> FMIPv6 over Foo before standards track FMIPv6.
> 
> We can't have an FMIPv6 over foo as standards track,
> which normatively references FMIPv6 if it isn't
> standards track.
> 
> Otherwise, if FMIPv6 is Standards' track, I think I agree.

Sure, that's what I indicated. Thanks your clear mention...:-)

Regards,

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:55:38 +1000

Hi Daniel,

Greg

Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
> For instance, current MIPSHOP charter is saying that FMIP6 aims to be a Standard
 > Track from Experimental. Along with this task, FMIP6 over foo could 
be considered
 > as the same track. It seems easier to implement FMIP6 over foo than
 > Experimental/Informational.
> 
> 
> Regards,
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:29:03 +0200

For my education, what do you think it will happen if IETF sets on
standardizing Standards Track FMIPv6 over foo and that actual foo's SDO
has developped its own FMIPv6 over foo, which is relatively different
than IETF's FMIPv6 over foo.

One one hand, one may assume that existing deployments are or will soon
be following that SDO's specs, not IETF's.  IETF's FMIPv6 has not been
reported as implemented on any other than WiFi deployment.

On another hand, in principle all networking-related is IETF standards,
not that SDO's.

So it will look a bit bizarre to have IETF Standards Track FMIPv6 over
foo that is different than that SDO's FMIPv6.  How do you think this
will be addressed?

My own take on this is that these choices (which standard will a vendor
deploy) will not be decided within this WG, it has never been.  So I
don't think Standards Track is appropiate but INFORMATIONAL is.

But other views may be different, and I wish to listen to that.

Alex

Soohong Daniel Park wrote:

> For instance, current MIPSHOP charter is saying that FMIP6 aims to be
>  a Standard Track from Experimental. Along with this task, FMIP6 over
>  foo could be considered as the same track. It seems easier to 
> implement FMIP6 over foo than Experimental/Informational.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG 
> Electronics. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Kempf" 
> <[email-masked]> To: "Rajeev Koodli" 
> <[email-masked]>; "Yoshihiro Ohba" <[email-masked]> 
> <[email-masked]> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 
> 12:59 AM Subject: FMIP over foo documents( was: Re: [Mipshop] gauging
>  consensus onthreat analysis and security modelfor IP-based discovery
>  and transport of 802.21 MIIS)
> 
> 
> 
>> informational. If they are not standards-track, there is possible 
>> room for differences in implemenation that could down the line lead
>>  to interoperability issues. I would note that the "IP over foo" 
>> RFCs are typically standards-track when they provide a 
>> specification of how to implement the protocol on a particular link
>>  layer, and informational when they deal with other issues, such as
>>  frameworks or considerations outside of actual protocol 
>> implementation.
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rajeev Koodli" 
>> <[email-masked]> To: "Yoshihiro Ohba" 
>> <[email-masked]> Cc: <[email-masked]>; "gabriel 
>> montenegro" <[email-masked]> Sent: Tuesday, 
>> October 11, 2005 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [Mipshop] gauging consensus 
>> on threat analysis and security modelfor IP-based discovery and 
>> transport of 802.21 MIIS
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
>>> 
>>>  interaction can be specified without depending on "streamlining 
>>> and refining". Of course one would expect revisions with 
>>> Informationals too as part of natural ID cycle.
>>> 
>>> -Rajeev
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Yoshihiro Ohba
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -Rajeev
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards, Yoshihiro Ohba
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We'd like to gauge consensus on this deliverable which we
>>>>>>>  added as a result of the WG meeting in Paris this
>>>>>>> summer:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Produce a threat analysis and security model for IP-based
>>>>>>>  discovery and transport of IEEE 802.21 Media-Independent
>>>>>>>  Information Services for advancement as Informational
>>>>>>> RFC
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Mipshop 
>>>>>>> mailing list [email-masked] 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Mipshop 
>>>>>> mailing list [email-masked] 
>>> _______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing 
>>> list [email-masked] 
>> _______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing 
>> list [email-masked] 
> _______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing list
>  [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:13:12 +0300 (EEST)

> than IETF's FMIPv6 over foo.

=> Agree. In fact, I still don't understand how FMIPv6 over CDMA 2K landed
in the charter and where is the interest in taking FMIPv6 to CDMA 2K. Please
note:

1- CDMA 2K has its own fast mobility mechanism

2- As someone mentioned in an email (long time ago), 3GPP2 should first
show a clear interest in using FMIPv6 and not another protocol to enable
handoff to WLAN or WIMAX technologies because FMIPv6 is probably *NOT* the
only solution.

Regards,

Wassim H.

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:40:30 -0700

Wassim Haddad wrote:
> in the charter and where is the interest in taking FMIPv6 to CDMA 2K. 

Well, at least those of us who were at the last MIPSHOP meeting heard it 
:-)

I don't think the intent here is to make any other SDO take this; it 
might happen. As I understand, it is similar to the FMIP over WLAN 
Informational. (might be worthwhile to go back and see if IEEE asked for it)

-Rajeev

> Please note:

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:30:40 -0700

Alex,

I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic. Are you concerned that IETF will 
standardize something that actually should be standardized by another SDO? 
Or that IETF and the other SDO will both publish FMIP over FOO documents 
that will not interoperate?

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email-masked]>
To: "Soohong Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>; "Rajeev Koodli" 
<[email-masked]>; "Yoshihiro Ohba" <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; "gabriel montenegro" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: FMIP over foo documents( was: Re: [Mipshop] gauging consensus 
onthreat analysis and security modelfor IP-based discovery and transport of 
802.21 MIIS)

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:45:49 +0200

James Kempf wrote:
> standardize something that actually should be standardized by another
> SDO? Or that IETF and the other SDO will both publish FMIP over FOO
> documents that will not interoperate?

The latter.

Alex

> 
>            jak
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandru Petrescu"
> <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: FMIP over foo documents( was: Re: [Mipshop] gauging
> consensus onthreat analysis and security modelfor IP-based discovery and
> transport of 802.21 MIIS)
> 
>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:54:17 -0700

>> documents that will not interoperate?

Well, I think there are a couple of possible answers. One is that exactly 
the same kind of co-ordination we are trying to achieve for 802.21 might be 
necessary. It requires some work, but such co-ordination is becoming more 
and more common and necessary these days.

The other is that, in IETF, it has traditionally been the case that the IETF 
has defined the "IP{v2,v6} over FOO" mappings. These are not done by IEEE or 
the another MAC standardization body. One could therefore argue that the 
same layering of responsibility should be done for "FMIP over FOO".

            jak

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:20:28 +0200

James Kempf wrote:

>>> I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic. Are you concerned that IETF
>>> will standardize something that actually should be standardized
>>> by another SDO? Or that IETF and the other SDO will both publish
>>> FMIP over FOO documents that will not interoperate?
>> 
>> 
>> The latter.
>> 
> 
> Well, I think there are a couple of possible answers. One is that 
> exactly the same kind of co-ordination we are trying to achieve for 
> 802.21 might be necessary. It requires some work, but such
> co-ordination is becoming more and more common and necessary these
> days.

That's a very nice to hear, but it would necessitate several things.  I
can't figure out many now, but implementing on 3GPP equipment will be
the privilege of few.

But if many people think it could be achieved, I'd be supportive to try
it.  Do we have 3GPP folk here sharing the perspective where IETF should
PS FMIPv6/3GPP?

> The other is that, in IETF, it has traditionally been the case that
> the IETF has defined the "IP{v2,v6} over FOO" mappings. These are not
> done by IEEE or the another MAC standardization body. One could
> therefore argue that the same layering of responsibility should be
> done for "FMIP over FOO".

YEs... I agree IP over foo is traditionally IETF.  Same layering of
responsibility could done for FMIP over FOO for 3GPP.

Maybe in case of FMIPv6 3GPP that start with IPv6 over PPP existing RFC
somewhere at IETF, or something.  Anyways, maybe the current FMIPv6/3GPP
talks about that, I must recognize I haven't read it but I will.

Alex

---

From: Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 03:34:52 +0300 (EEST)

> Well, at least those of us who were at the last MIPSHOP meeting heard it

=> I was also in the last mipshop meeting and I've re- read the previous emails
(april 2005). There is only one email which says that FMIPv6 over CDMA 2K "sounds
interesting" and then the item joined the charter while other people were asking
for a clear interest from PP2 before adopting such topic!

> Informational. (might be worthwhile to go back and see if IEEE asked for it)

=> OK I see what you mean. In this case, it is well justified to make it
informational.

Thanks,

Wassim H.