
From Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com  Wed Jun  1 00:39:53 2011
Return-Path: <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19143E0741 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 00:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90QMDrm+rEot for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 00:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail37.messagelabs.com (mail37.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3FEE0675 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 00:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-37.messagelabs.com!1306913991!58241560!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [72.35.6.119]
Received: (qmail 12075 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2011 07:39:51 -0000
Received: from mail.bridgewatersystems.com (HELO webmail.bridgewatersystems.com) (72.35.6.119) by server-13.tower-37.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Jun 2011 07:39:51 -0000
Received: from m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.148]) by m679t01.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.144]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 03:39:48 -0400
From: Mark Jones <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>, "dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 03:39:46 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Issue #17 on RFC4005bis
Thread-Index: AcwelNAqitD4IhxCQUag667+JyTEEABlEllg
Message-ID: <B4B762B06D90774E9E8016C89B66AF875D2CBFF4@m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com>
References: <4DBBDD2F.3070705@net-zen.net> <4DE33C67.5070509@net-zen.net>
In-Reply-To: <4DE33C67.5070509@net-zen.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-exclaimer-md-config: f069778a-5a3c-4a57-aa01-0f5f3f2623e3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue #17 on RFC4005bis
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:39:53 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
<snip>
> >> I think it would be useful to mention RFC5777 here as offering an
> >> alternative.
> >
> > This is fine with me; care to contribute some text?
>=20
> RSVP.
>

"The QoS-Resources AVP defined in [RFC5777] fulfills a similar function to =
the QoS-Filter-Rule AVP. The QoS-Resources AVP is of type grouped, supports=
 additional traffic classification options and can be extended to support n=
ew QoS parameters. An example of the use of the QoS-Resources AVP in the Di=
ameter NASREQ application can be found in section 7.2 of [RFC5777]".

Regards
Mark

From dromasca@avaya.com  Wed Jun  1 06:35:56 2011
Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D923E07A4 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 06:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.77
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.77 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MkEupH81dlGB for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 06:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DC3E076F for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 06:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApYGAN0/5k3GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABTmBGOE3eobYNaApsOhiAElTWKTQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,303,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="191212778"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 01 Jun 2011 09:35:37 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,303,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="628378368"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 01 Jun 2011 09:35:35 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:35:21 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0403328F01@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
Thread-Index: AcwgYMEW15lWNM0vQkSW171k4txjHw==
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 13:35:56 -0000

Hi,=20

Please find below the AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt.
I would suggest that the issues raised in this review be clarified and
the necessary edits performed in a revised I-D before progressing this
document to IETF Last Call.=20

Technical comments are marked by T, and Editorial comments are marked by
an E.=20

T1. I think that it's better to start using references to RFC 3588bis
rather than 3588 - as soon (hopefully) 3588 will be obsoleted.=20

T2. In RFC 3181 the Preemption Priority and Defending Priority fields
are 16-bit unsigned while here the Preemption-Priority and
Defending-Priority AVPs are Unsigned32. Also admission priority
parameter defined in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] is 8
bit while the Admission-Priority AVP is of type Unsigned32. Should not
these limits be mentioned in the definitions in sections 3.1 and 3.2?=20

T3. Section 3.3.1:=20

   The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
   UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique
ordered
   set of priority values as described in [rfc4412].

Should not this AVP refer here to the priority namespace, rather than
priority values?=20

T4. Section 3.3 - RFC 4412 allows for new namespaces and associated
ordered value sets to be defined in the future extending the registries
defined in sections 12.1 and 12.2. The text in the I-D should reflect
this extensibility.=20

T5. In draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-15.txt ALRP Namespace is codified
in 16bits and ALRP Value is codified in 8 bits, while ALRP-Namespace AVP
and ALRP-Value AVP are of type Unsigned32. Should not these limits be
mentioned in the definitions in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2?

T6. I think that the Security Considerations section should also refer
to the security considerations in RFC 3181, RFC 4412, and
draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp which refer to the fields defined in
those documents that can be carried in the AVPs defined here.=20

E1. The document has no exact date - just the month is mentioned.

E2. Running idnits results in a number of warnings due to exceeding the
maximum (72) allowed length of a row.=20


Thanks and Regards,

Dan=20


From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Wed Jun  1 12:53:02 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A56E085C; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 12:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.573
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xqguwrpiXT5p; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 12:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E18E0664; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 12:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55
Message-ID: <20110601195301.11257.5580.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:53:01 -0700
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-07.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:53:02 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W=
orking Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for =
IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction
	Author(s)       : Violeta Cakulev
                          Avi Lior
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-07.txt
	Pages           : 17
	Date            : 2011-06-01

   The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) is a component
   of the IPsec architecture and is used to perform mutual
   authentication as well as to establish and to maintain IPsec security
   associations (SAs) between the respective parties.  IKEv2 supports
   several different authentication mechanisms, such as the Extensible
   Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates, and pre-shared secrets.

   Diameter interworking for Mobile IPv6 between the Home Agent, as a
   Diameter client, and the Diameter server has been specified.
   However, that specification focused on the usage of EAP and did not
   include support for pre-shared secret based authentication available
   with IKEv2.  This document specifies IKEv2 server, as a Diameter
   client, to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 with pre-
   shared secret based authentication.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-07.t=
xt

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

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-07.txt

From violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com  Wed Jun  1 13:04:44 2011
Return-Path: <violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB3BE085D; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 13:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XG9Gx6o1OkHx; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2A5E085C; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 13:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p51K4d3J021833 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:04:40 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p51K4cvD008021 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:04:38 -0500
Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.124]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:04:38 -0500
From: "Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)" <violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:04:37 -0500
Thread-Topic: [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt> (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AcwYsMo/0HGmfSXETjK9JZiEqS4i5AH5KH8A
Message-ID: <AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A625099F98E2@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20110520135022.1622.22713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DD9581C.3070900@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DD9581C.3070900@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt> (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:04:44 -0000

Hi Yaron,
Thanks for the comments.
Please see inline [VC].

-Violeta

-----Original Message-----
From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Y=
aron Sheffer
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:38 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: IPsecme WG; draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.og; dime@ietf=
.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt>=
 (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to D=
iameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard

Hi,

Having read this document only now, I think there's a number of serious iss=
ues with it. This document was sent to the ipsec mailing list a while ago b=
ut unfortunately got no review.

Summary:
1. I think the wrong architectural choice was made, in preferring PSK over =
EAP authentication.
2. There is not enough detail in the document to result in interoperable im=
plementations.
[VC] Please see responses to detailed comments.

Detailed comments:
* The appropriate ref for IKEv2 is RFC 5996. This was actually noted in the=
 shepherd review back in March.
[VC] This is fixed in v7.


* The document notes that EAP is one of the authentication modes supported =
by IKEv2. EAP is designed for interaction with backend AAA servers, and is =
quite capable of performing shared-secret authentication, using a variety o=
f EAP methods (and see also RFC 5998, on IKEv2 mutual auth with EAP). Yet t=
he document does not explain why EAP is not used, instead preferring the IK=
E PSK authentication method.
[VC] Diameter application for Diameter client to server communication for I=
KEv2 with EAP has been specified in RFC 5778. However, there is no Diameter=
 application specified for IKE PSK authentication method. This is stated in=
 the draft both in Abstract and Introduction. The draft does not recommend =
one or the other, it is simply specifying what is not specified. It is up t=
o a specific use case to decide what to use. For example 3GPP2 decided to u=
se IKEv2 PSK (in 2 of its specifications), and that is what triggered this =
effort in IETF.


* 4.1: how can the incoming SPI be used to identify the peer?
[VC] As stated in Section 4.1 IDi payload is extracted from the IKE_AUTH me=
ssage and this payload 'MUST contain an identity that is meaningful
   for the Diameter infrastructure, such as a Network Access Identifier (NA=
I), since it is used by the IKEv2 Server to populate the User-Name
   AVP in the Diameter message'. SPI is not used to identify the peer.


* Packing additional semantics into SPI may conflict with elements of the I=
Psec architecture (see for example Sec. 9.3 of draft-ietf-ipsecme-failure-d=
etection-08).
[VC] Agreed.


* 4.1, 2nd paragraph: generation of the PSK is central to this solution, so=
 it cannot be "outside the scope" of the document. There is no way to inter=
operate otherwise.
[VC] This draft focuses on IKEv2 server, as a Diameter client, to the Diame=
ter server communication for IKEv2 with pre-
   shared secret based authentication, and specifies Diameter application f=
or this communication. It is left to specifications that make use of this D=
iameter application to specify where the PSK comes from and how it is gener=
ated. As mentioned above, there are two 3GPP2 specs that make use of this D=
iameter application and both of those specs specify generation of the PSK.


* Moreover, if a single client is expected to sometimes use EAP and sometim=
es PSK, there must be a way to notify it which one to use.
[VC] This is not the assumption. Again this draft specifies Diameter applic=
ation for Diameter client to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 wi=
th PSK. IKEv2 server knows whether EAP or PSK is used.


* How does key-lifetime relate to the lifetime of the IKE SA?
[VC] This should be the same as in RFC 5996, how pre-shared secret lifetime=
 relates to the lifetime of the IKE SA. This draft should not make any chan=
ges.


* Sec. 10 refers to the PSK as a "session key" which is incorrect, as PSK i=
s only used for authentication and does not encrypt anything.
[VC] Good point. It is changed to PSK in v7.


* The same paragraph is very vague about the security properties of PSK.
RFC 5996 takes PSK much more seriously, e.g. "When using pre-shared keys, a=
 critical consideration is how to assure the randomness of these secrets." =
Again, I believe the document should specify how the PSK is derived.
[VC] I absolutely agree that derivation of PSK is critical. However, as sta=
ted above, this draft specifies Diameter application only. Therefore, secur=
ity consideration section cannot include much more details on derivation of=
 PSK as it is specified elsewhere.


* Why "if nonces are included" where the document says that they *must* be =
included (in the AVP occurrence table).
[VC] Good point. This is removed in v7.


Thanks,
Yaron

On 05/20/2011 04:50 PM, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and
> Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document:
> - 'Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server
>     to Diameter Server Interaction'
>    <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt>  as a Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-03. Exceptionally, comments may
> be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>     The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) is a component
>     of the IPsec architecture and is used to perform mutual
>     authentication as well as to establish and to maintain IPsec security
>     associations (SAs) between the respective parties.  IKEv2 supports
>     several different authentication mechanisms, such as the Extensible
>     Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates, and pre-shared secrets.
>
>     With [RFC5778] the Diameter interworking for Mobile IPv6 between the
>     Home Agent, as a Diameter client, and the Diameter server has been
>     specified.  However, that specification focused on the usage of EAP
>     and did not include support for pre-shared secret based
>     authentication available with IKEv2.  This document specifies IKEv2
>     server, as a Diameter client, to the Diameter server communication
>     for IKEv2 with pre-shared secret based authentication.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

From avi@bridgewatersystems.com  Wed Jun  1 16:25:29 2011
Return-Path: <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E21CE086B for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 16:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hL9mAoqLh2Y4 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 16:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail28.messagelabs.com (mail28.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56556E084C for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 16:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: avi@bridgewatersystems.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-28.messagelabs.com!1306970726!56680884!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [72.35.6.119]
Received: (qmail 6578 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2011 23:25:27 -0000
Received: from mail.bridgewatersystems.com (HELO webmail.bridgewatersystems.com) (72.35.6.119) by server-5.tower-28.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Jun 2011 23:25:27 -0000
Received: from m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.148]) by m679t01.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.144]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 19:25:24 -0400
From: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>, Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 19:25:23 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id
Thread-Index: Acwgsy4EU49tmapGTDmKkl7/dL/rsg==
Message-ID: <CA0C1FA9.18583%avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DCDD6B5.6010803@net-zen.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-exclaimer-md-config: f069778a-5a3c-4a57-aa01-0f5f3f2623e3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:25:29 -0000

So here you go Glen.

The wording in the 3588 is really screwed up hence the confusion
everywhere. I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation.


5.3.3 Vendor-Id is the vendor of the Diameter Application.

Vendor or SDO is the same - we all agree.


Given that that Cisco is the device Vendor - the entity that made the
machine.

And WiMAX forum as the vendor(SDO) of the Diameter Application - they own
that Specification and thus they are the vendor for the Diameter
APplication.

Therefore, regarding Vendor-Id.

Since WiMAX is the vendor of the WiMAX DIameter Application and Cisco is
only the device vendor then Vendor-Id attribute should be set to WiMAX
Forum.

5.3.3 does not state that the vendor-id is set to the *implementor* of the
Diameter Application.



So that is what is wrong with the text in section 5.3.3

If we want to align the text to your interpretation of the text I suggest
we re-write to explicitly state what we mean potentially as follows:

From:
The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
   the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
   value assigned to the vendor of the Diameter application.


TO:
 The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
   the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
   value assigned to the vendor of the implementor of the  Diameter
application.=20

Even Better (using the text from 5.3.6)
The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
value assigned to the device vendor.



Logically it makes sense since a given platform is made by one vendor and
supports zero or more applications.  Thus given the cardinality of the
attributes, it makes sense that Vendor-Id records the manufacturers
identity. =20

Also, reading towards the end, of 5.3.3 we get further hints that it is
the device vendor.


The bottom line, does the Vendor Id and Supported Vendor actually matter.
In some SDOs its not used at all.


-- Avi Lior
--Bridgewater Systems






On 13-05-11 21:11 , "Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> wrote:

>On 5/13/2011 8:42 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
>
>>>> What is "a vendor other than the device vendor"? Is it equivalent to
>>> the
>>>> Forum in the aforementioned example?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Say, a vendor X implemented a Diameter agent and some application in
>>> it. The vendor X also saw it beneficial to support vendor specific
>>> extensions from vendors A, B and C for that application. During CER/CEA
>>> exchange A, B and C would be put into Supported-Vendor-Id AVPs. The X
>>> would be put into Vendor-Id AVP.
>>=20
>>=20
>> If vendor X implemented both its own extensions and also extensions from
>> SDO/Forum Foo, can we say X is carried in Vendor-Id and Foo is carried
>>in
>> Supported-Vendor-Id? Is that the intent of the spec?
>
>The Vendor-Id AVP identifies the source of the implementation; for
>example, a Cisco NAS would identify itself as such by means of this AVP.
> One could assume that a Cisco NAS would support at least a subset of
>the Cisco vendor-specific extensions, but it would be safer IMHO for it
>to include a Supported-Vendor-Id AVP containing the Cisco SMI code as
>well.  There can be multiple instances of the Supported-Vendor-Id AVP in
>a message, but only a single instance of the Vendor-Id AVP.  I'm most
>interested in what is unclear about the spec, though.  Here is the
>section of RFC 3588 defining the Vendor-Id AVP:
>
>5.3.3.  Vendor-Id AVP
>
>   The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>   the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>   value assigned to the vendor of the Diameter application.  In
>   combination with the Supported-Vendor-Id AVP (Section 5.3.6), this
>   MAY be used in order to know which vendor specific attributes may be
>   sent to the peer.  It is also envisioned that the combination of the
>   Vendor-Id, Product-Name (Section 5.3.7) and the Firmware-Revision
>   (Section 5.3.4) AVPs MAY provide very useful debugging information.
>
>   A Vendor-Id value of zero in the CER or CEA messages is reserved and
>   indicates that this field is ignored.
>
>Obviously there's something wrong with this text; what is it?
>
>...


From gwz@net-zen.net  Wed Jun  1 22:33:30 2011
Return-Path: <gwz@net-zen.net>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC181E07F0 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 22:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wRS3RaYvEqzj for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 22:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa01-06.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-06.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9323BE07EE for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 22:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16496 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2011 05:33:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (115.87.113.44) by p3plsmtpa01-06.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.86) with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2011 05:33:28 -0000
Message-ID: <4DE720A2.2000201@net-zen.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 12:33:22 +0700
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
Organization: Network Zen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
References: <CA0C1FA9.18583%avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA0C1FA9.18583%avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------010109070105070709090206"
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 05:33:31 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010109070105070709090206
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/2/2011 6:25 AM, Avi Lior wrote:

> So here you go Glen.
> 
> The wording in the 3588 is really screwed up hence the confusion
> everywhere. I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation.
> 
> 
> 5.3.3 Vendor-Id is the vendor of the Diameter Application.
> 
> Vendor or SDO is the same - we all agree.
> 
> 
> Given that that Cisco is the device Vendor - the entity that made the
> machine.

OK

> 
> And WiMAX forum as the vendor(SDO) of the Diameter Application - they own
> that Specification and thus they are the vendor for the Diameter
> APplication.

OK.

> 
> Therefore, regarding Vendor-Id.
> 
> Since WiMAX is the vendor of the WiMAX DIameter Application and Cisco is
> only the device vendor then Vendor-Id attribute should be set to WiMAX
> Forum.

Nope.  In this case, the Vendor-Id should be set to Cisco & an instance
of the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP (RFC 3588, Section 6.11) must
be included, set to WiMAX Forum.  If a "server" running on a
multipurpose computer or appliance, the Vendor-Id should be set to, for
example, Open Diameter but still the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id must
be present.

> 
> 5.3.3 does not state that the vendor-id is set to the *implementor* of the
> Diameter Application.


> 
> 
> 
> So that is what is wrong with the text in section 5.3.3
> 
> If we want to align the text to your interpretation of the text I suggest
> we re-write to explicitly state what we mean potentially as follows:
> 
> From:
> The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>    the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>    value assigned to the vendor of the Diameter application.
> 
> 
> TO:
>  The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>    the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>    value assigned to the vendor of the implementor of the  Diameter
> application. 
> 
> Even Better (using the text from 5.3.6)
> The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
> the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
> value assigned to the device vendor.

Yes, that's better, but there is the possibility on the "server" side
(on the "client" side, too, I suppose, but that seems less likely) that
the vendor of the base protocol code is different from the creator of
the application code, right?  For example, someone might build a plug-in
for an existing base Diameter server to implement the WiMAX application.
 So maybe "assigned to the Diameter software vendor" might be better?

> 
> 
> 
> Logically it makes sense since a given platform is made by one vendor and
> supports zero or more applications.  Thus given the cardinality of the
> attributes, it makes sense that Vendor-Id records the manufacturers
> identity.  

Yes.

> 
> Also, reading towards the end, of 5.3.3 we get further hints that it is
> the device vendor.
> 
> 
> The bottom line, does the Vendor Id and Supported Vendor actually matter.
> In some SDOs its not used at all.

One-trick ponies?

> 
> 
> -- Avi Lior
> --Bridgewater Systems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 13-05-11 21:11 , "Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/13/2011 8:42 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
>>
>>>>> What is "a vendor other than the device vendor"? Is it equivalent to
>>>> the
>>>>> Forum in the aforementioned example?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Say, a vendor X implemented a Diameter agent and some application in
>>>> it. The vendor X also saw it beneficial to support vendor specific
>>>> extensions from vendors A, B and C for that application. During CER/CEA
>>>> exchange A, B and C would be put into Supported-Vendor-Id AVPs. The X
>>>> would be put into Vendor-Id AVP.
>>>
>>>
>>> If vendor X implemented both its own extensions and also extensions from
>>> SDO/Forum Foo, can we say X is carried in Vendor-Id and Foo is carried
>>> in
>>> Supported-Vendor-Id? Is that the intent of the spec?
>>
>> The Vendor-Id AVP identifies the source of the implementation; for
>> example, a Cisco NAS would identify itself as such by means of this AVP.
>> One could assume that a Cisco NAS would support at least a subset of
>> the Cisco vendor-specific extensions, but it would be safer IMHO for it
>> to include a Supported-Vendor-Id AVP containing the Cisco SMI code as
>> well.  There can be multiple instances of the Supported-Vendor-Id AVP in
>> a message, but only a single instance of the Vendor-Id AVP.  I'm most
>> interested in what is unclear about the spec, though.  Here is the
>> section of RFC 3588 defining the Vendor-Id AVP:
>>
>> 5.3.3.  Vendor-Id AVP
>>
>>   The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>>   the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>>   value assigned to the vendor of the Diameter application.  In
>>   combination with the Supported-Vendor-Id AVP (Section 5.3.6), this
>>   MAY be used in order to know which vendor specific attributes may be
>>   sent to the peer.  It is also envisioned that the combination of the
>>   Vendor-Id, Product-Name (Section 5.3.7) and the Firmware-Revision
>>   (Section 5.3.4) AVPs MAY provide very useful debugging information.
>>
>>   A Vendor-Id value of zero in the CER or CEA messages is reserved and
>>   indicates that this field is ignored.
>>
>> Obviously there's something wrong with this text; what is it?
>>
>> ...
> 
> 
> 

--------------010109070105070709090206
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
 name="gwz.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="gwz.vcf"

begin:vcard
fn:Glen Zorn
n:Zorn;Glen
org:Network Zen
adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA
email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net
tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617
note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C  2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F 
version:2.1
end:vcard


--------------010109070105070709090206--

From kmigoe@nsa.gov  Thu Jun  2 05:18:50 2011
Return-Path: <kmigoe@nsa.gov>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CDCE0770 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 05:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.366
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yQVQUjF+7Gvn for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 05:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov (msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov [63.239.65.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BE6E077C for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 05:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MSCS-GH1-UEA01.corp.nsa.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id p52CIl9i014453 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:18:48 GMT
Received: from MSIS-GH1-UEA06.corp.nsa.gov ([10.215.228.137]) by MSCS-GH1-UEA01.corp.nsa.gov with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);  Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:18:47 -0400
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC211F.3971CDF6"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:18:47 -0400
Message-ID: <80F9AC969A517A4DA0DE3E7CF74CC1BB425B20@MSIS-GH1-UEA06.corp.nsa.gov>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26: circular definition?
Thread-Index: AcwhHzlBFdCRNEAWTF6Q0nSL5i2IPg==
From: "Igoe, Kevin M." <kmigoe@nsa.gov>
To: <dime@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2011 12:18:47.0370 (UTC) FILETIME=[392AA2A0:01CC211F]
Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26: circular definition?
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 12:18:50 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CC211F.3971CDF6
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Glen Zorn & I have been having a sidebar discussion on the circularity

of the following pair of definitions in draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26.

=20

Existing definitions:

=20

   Diameter Peer

=20

      If a Diameter Node shares a direct transport connection with

      another Diameter Node, it is a Diameter Peer to that Diameter

      Node.

=20

=20

  Transport Connection
=20
      A transport connection is a TCP or SCTP connection existing
      directly between two Diameter peers, otherwise known as a Peer-to-
      Peer Connection.
=20

We propose the following change to the definition of Diameter Peer

that removes the circularity and emphasizes the need to verify the node

is properly authorized before accepting it as a peer and entering it
into=20

the Peer list (as discussed in section 5.2).=20

=20

Proposed definition:

=20

   Diameter Peer

=20

                Two Diameter Nodes are Peers if and only if a properly

      authorized transport (TCP or SCTP) connection exists between

      them.

=20

=20

Comments/discussion appreciated.

=20

=20

Kevin M. Igoe   |   "Everyone is entitled to their own
kmigoe@nsa.gov <mailto:kmigoe@nsa.gov>   |    opinions, but not to their
own facts."
                |       - Daniel Patrick Moynihan -


------_=_NextPart_001_01CC211F.3971CDF6
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 =
(filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Consolas;
	panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
	margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:10.5pt;
	font-family:Consolas;}
pre
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
	margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
	{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
	font-family:"Courier New";}
span.PlainTextChar
	{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
	font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue =
vlink=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Glen Zorn &amp; I =
have been having a sidebar discussion on the =
circularity<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>of the following =
pair of definitions in =
draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Existing =
definitions:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
Diameter Peer<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If a Diameter Node shares a direct =
transport connection with<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; another Diameter Node, it is a =
Diameter Peer to that Diameter<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Node.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><pre>&nbsp; Transport =
Connection<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></pre><pre>&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A transport connection is a TCP or SCTP connection =
existing<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; directly =
between two Diameter peers, otherwise known as a =
Peer-to-<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Peer =
Connection.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></pre><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'>We propose the following change to the definition of Diameter =
Peer<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>that removes the =
circularity and emphasizes the need to verify the =
node<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>is properly =
authorized before accepting it as a peer and entering it into =
<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>the Peer list (as =
discussed in section 5.2). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Proposed =
definition:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
Diameter Peer<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Two Diameter Nodes =
are Peers if and only if a properly<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; authorized transport (TCP or SCTP) =
connection exists between<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Comments/discussion =
appreciated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier =
New"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Kevin M. =
Igoe&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;| &nbsp; &quot;Everyone is entitled to their =
own<br><a href=3D"mailto:kmigoe@nsa.gov"><span =
style=3D'color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>kmigoe@nsa.gov</span></a>=
&nbsp; |&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; opinions, but not to their own =
facts.&quot;<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp; - Daniel Patrick Moynihan -<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>
------_=_NextPart_001_01CC211F.3971CDF6--

From avi@bridgewatersystems.com  Thu Jun  2 06:54:13 2011
Return-Path: <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51ABDE076A for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 06:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uy0Y-xrFhw9k for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail201.messagelabs.com (mail201.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E55FE065B for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: avi@bridgewatersystems.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-201.messagelabs.com!1307022850!113193345!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [72.35.6.119]
Received: (qmail 30775 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2011 13:54:11 -0000
Received: from mail.bridgewatersystems.com (HELO webmail.bridgewatersystems.com) (72.35.6.119) by server-12.tower-201.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Jun 2011 13:54:11 -0000
Received: from m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.148]) by m679t01.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.144]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:54:04 -0400
From: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:54:02 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id
Thread-Index: AcwhLIh2zGCcxdiQR5KSj9d6pJaVvQ==
Message-ID: <CA0D0AC3.186AA%avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DE720A2.2000201@net-zen.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-exclaimer-md-config: f069778a-5a3c-4a57-aa01-0f5f3f2623e3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:54:13 -0000

See inline...
-- Avi Lior
--Bridgewater Systems



On 02-06-11 01:33 , "Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> wrote:

>On 6/2/2011 6:25 AM, Avi Lior wrote:
>
>> So here you go Glen.
>>=20
>> The wording in the 3588 is really screwed up hence the confusion
>> everywhere. I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation.
>>=20
>>=20
>> 5.3.3 Vendor-Id is the vendor of the Diameter Application.
>>=20
>> Vendor or SDO is the same - we all agree.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Given that that Cisco is the device Vendor - the entity that made the
>> machine.
>
>OK
>
>>=20
>> And WiMAX forum as the vendor(SDO) of the Diameter Application - they
>>own
>> that Specification and thus they are the vendor for the Diameter
>> APplication.
>
>OK.
>
>>=20
>> Therefore, regarding Vendor-Id.
>>=20
>> Since WiMAX is the vendor of the WiMAX DIameter Application and Cisco is
>> only the device vendor then Vendor-Id attribute should be set to WiMAX
>> Forum.
>
>Nope.  In this case, the Vendor-Id should be set to Cisco & an instance
>of the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP (RFC 3588, Section 6.11) must
>be included, set to WiMAX Forum.  If a "server" running on a
>multipurpose computer or appliance, the Vendor-Id should be set to, for
>example, Open Diameter but still the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id must
>be present.

I know that is what you *think* should go in -- I don't disagree -- but
you asked what is wrong with the text and I am telling you that when you
read the text it instructs you to put the Vendor Id of the Diameter
Application and in no way can I come to your conclusion (the correct one)
by the text in 3588.


>
>>=20
>> 5.3.3 does not state that the vendor-id is set to the *implementor* of
>>the
>> Diameter Application.
>
>
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> So that is what is wrong with the text in section 5.3.3
>>=20
>> If we want to align the text to your interpretation of the text I
>>suggest
>> we re-write to explicitly state what we mean potentially as follows:
>>=20
>> From:
>> The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>>    the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>>    value assigned to the vendor of the Diameter application.
>>=20
>>=20
>> TO:
>>  The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>>    the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>>    value assigned to the vendor of the implementor of the  Diameter
>> application.=20
>>=20
>> Even Better (using the text from 5.3.6)
>> The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>> the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>> value assigned to the device vendor.
>
>Yes, that's better, but there is the possibility on the "server" side
>(on the "client" side, too, I suppose, but that seems less likely) that
>the vendor of the base protocol code is different from the creator of
>the application code, right?  For example, someone might build a plug-in
>for an existing base Diameter server to implement the WiMAX application.
> So maybe "assigned to the Diameter software vendor" might be better?

Perhaps.  The stack and application(s) on top of it is all software to me.
 To me the statement is saying (not the hardware vendor) I.e., not Sun or
IBM etc... But I wouldn't think that anyone would think that putting down
the hardware.

In situations that you are mentioning where the stack and applications are
different.  Then we do have an issue.  If what we are using this
information for is to learn which extensions I can use on the next hop and
if those extensions apply to either or both the stack and the application
then I would need to convey both vendor's (stack and application) to the
next hop.  There are no instructions on how to use these 'tools'.  In this
case we could put one vendor id in the Vendor-Id attribute, the other in
the Supported-Vendor attribute.  But which?  Its a mess.  The bottom line
is is this ever used?  What are the typical use cases? And should be
document how one would use this information.

People must realize that this is a hop by hop thing.  Some people think
that it is an end-to-end thing. As a hop by hop mechanism how useful is it
especially when many if not most of the time we are talking through one or
more intermediaries before we get to the application "end" points.  And
that is when we are really interested in Vendor extension and thus who
wrote the APplication code/who wrote the stack code etc.


>
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Logically it makes sense since a given platform is made by one vendor
>>and
>> supports zero or more applications.  Thus given the cardinality of the
>> attributes, it makes sense that Vendor-Id records the manufacturers
>> identity. =20
>
>Yes.
>
>>=20
>> Also, reading towards the end, of 5.3.3 we get further hints that it is
>> the device vendor.
>>=20
>>=20
>> The bottom line, does the Vendor Id and Supported Vendor actually
>>matter.
>> In some SDOs its not used at all.
>
>One-trick ponies?
>
>>=20
>>=20
>> -- Avi Lior
>> --Bridgewater Systems
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 13-05-11 21:11 , "Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 5/13/2011 8:42 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What is "a vendor other than the device vendor"? Is it equivalent to
>>>>> the
>>>>>> Forum in the aforementioned example?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Say, a vendor X implemented a Diameter agent and some application in
>>>>> it. The vendor X also saw it beneficial to support vendor specific
>>>>> extensions from vendors A, B and C for that application. During
>>>>>CER/CEA
>>>>> exchange A, B and C would be put into Supported-Vendor-Id AVPs. The X
>>>>> would be put into Vendor-Id AVP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If vendor X implemented both its own extensions and also extensions
>>>>from
>>>> SDO/Forum Foo, can we say X is carried in Vendor-Id and Foo is carried
>>>> in
>>>> Supported-Vendor-Id? Is that the intent of the spec?
>>>
>>> The Vendor-Id AVP identifies the source of the implementation; for
>>> example, a Cisco NAS would identify itself as such by means of this
>>>AVP.
>>> One could assume that a Cisco NAS would support at least a subset of
>>> the Cisco vendor-specific extensions, but it would be safer IMHO for it
>>> to include a Supported-Vendor-Id AVP containing the Cisco SMI code as
>>> well.  There can be multiple instances of the Supported-Vendor-Id AVP
>>>in
>>> a message, but only a single instance of the Vendor-Id AVP.  I'm most
>>> interested in what is unclear about the spec, though.  Here is the
>>> section of RFC 3588 defining the Vendor-Id AVP:
>>>
>>> 5.3.3.  Vendor-Id AVP
>>>
>>>   The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>>>   the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>>>   value assigned to the vendor of the Diameter application.  In
>>>   combination with the Supported-Vendor-Id AVP (Section 5.3.6), this
>>>   MAY be used in order to know which vendor specific attributes may be
>>>   sent to the peer.  It is also envisioned that the combination of the
>>>   Vendor-Id, Product-Name (Section 5.3.7) and the Firmware-Revision
>>>   (Section 5.3.4) AVPs MAY provide very useful debugging information.
>>>
>>>   A Vendor-Id value of zero in the CER or CEA messages is reserved and
>>>   indicates that this field is ignored.
>>>
>>> Obviously there's something wrong with this text; what is it?
>>>
>>> ...
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20


From gwz@net-zen.net  Thu Jun  2 11:18:10 2011
Return-Path: <gwz@net-zen.net>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0FA5E07FC for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 11:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VlQn-e6EYP7Z for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 11:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpauth14.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth14.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DDC36E06FB for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 11:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9534 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2011 18:18:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (115.87.113.44) by smtpauth14.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.39) with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2011 18:18:04 -0000
Message-ID: <4DE7D3D7.5020708@net-zen.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:17:59 +0700
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
Organization: Network Zen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
References: <CA0D0AC3.186AA%avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA0D0AC3.186AA%avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070708090807080700090505"
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:18:10 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070708090807080700090505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/2/2011 8:54 PM, Avi Lior wrote:

...

>>> Therefore, regarding Vendor-Id.
>>>
>>> Since WiMAX is the vendor of the WiMAX DIameter Application and Cisco is
>>> only the device vendor then Vendor-Id attribute should be set to WiMAX
>>> Forum.
>>
>> Nope.  In this case, the Vendor-Id should be set to Cisco & an instance
>> of the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP (RFC 3588, Section 6.11) must
>> be included, set to WiMAX Forum.  If a "server" running on a
>> multipurpose computer or appliance, the Vendor-Id should be set to, for
>> example, Open Diameter but still the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id must
>> be present.
> 
> I know that is what you *think* should go in -- I don't disagree -- but
> you asked what is wrong with the text and I am telling you that when you
> read the text it instructs you to put the Vendor Id of the Diameter
> Application and in no way can I come to your conclusion (the correct one)
> by the text in 3588.

OK, it actually says "Diameter application"; there's a difference.  IIRC
there was a debate about the wording here.  I think that it originally
said "Diameter software" but somebody pointed out that in a NAS, router,
etc. it would actually be "Diameter firmware" but nobody liked "Diameter
software or firmware" so "application" was taken as a compromise,
apparently incorrectly.

...

>>> So that is what is wrong with the text in section 5.3.3
>>>
>>> If we want to align the text to your interpretation of the text I
>>> suggest
>>> we re-write to explicitly state what we mean potentially as follows:
>>>
>>> From:
>>> The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>>>    the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>>>    value assigned to the vendor of the Diameter application.
>>>
>>>
>>> TO:
>>>  The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>>>    the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>>>    value assigned to the vendor of the implementor of the  Diameter
>>> application. 
>>>
>>> Even Better (using the text from 5.3.6)
>>> The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>>> the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>>> value assigned to the device vendor.
>>
>> Yes, that's better, but there is the possibility on the "server" side
>> (on the "client" side, too, I suppose, but that seems less likely) that
>> the vendor of the base protocol code is different from the creator of
>> the application code, right?  For example, someone might build a plug-in
>> for an existing base Diameter server to implement the WiMAX application.
>> So maybe "assigned to the Diameter software vendor" might be better?
> 
> Perhaps.  The stack and application(s) on top of it is all software to me.
>  To me the statement is saying (not the hardware vendor) I.e., not Sun or
> IBM etc... But I wouldn't think that anyone would think that putting down
> the hardware.
> 
> In situations that you are mentioning where the stack and applications are
> different.  Then we do have an issue.  If what we are using this
> information for is to learn which extensions I can use on the next hop and
> if those extensions apply to either or both the stack and the application
> then I would need to convey both vendor's (stack and application) to the
> next hop.  There are no instructions on how to use these 'tools'.  In this
> case we could put one vendor id in the Vendor-Id attribute, the other in
> the Supported-Vendor attribute.  

We could, but that would be wrong IMHO: if it is a vendor-specific app
then there is an AVP specifically designed to carry that information,
the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id.  The Supported-Vendor-ID AVP is
specifically used to advertise support for vendor-specific AVPs, _not_ apps.

...

--------------070708090807080700090505
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
 name="gwz.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="gwz.vcf"

begin:vcard
fn:Glen Zorn
n:Zorn;Glen
org:Network Zen
adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA
email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net
tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617
note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C  2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F 
version:2.1
end:vcard


--------------070708090807080700090505--

From avi@bridgewatersystems.com  Thu Jun  2 11:56:36 2011
Return-Path: <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241F7E0879 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 11:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ndaDlkZKcqBc for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 11:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail201.messagelabs.com (mail201.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5665BE0888 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 11:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: avi@bridgewatersystems.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-201.messagelabs.com!1307040993!69634223!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [72.35.6.119]
Received: (qmail 28221 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2011 18:56:34 -0000
Received: from mail.bridgewatersystems.com (HELO webmail.bridgewatersystems.com) (72.35.6.119) by server-7.tower-201.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Jun 2011 18:56:34 -0000
Received: from m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.148]) by m679t01.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.144]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 14:56:31 -0400
From: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 14:56:28 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id
Thread-Index: AcwhVshs/Omc9h5+SxyXjqJ6o7ik5g==
Message-ID: <CA0D51AB.1879F%avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DE7D3D7.5020708@net-zen.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-exclaimer-md-config: f069778a-5a3c-4a57-aa01-0f5f3f2623e3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:56:36 -0000

Okay so lets recap:

We seem to agree that the wording for Vendor ID should be changed to:
The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
value assigned to the Diameter software vendor.

We need an errata?=20



-- Avi Lior
--Bridgewater Systems






On 02-06-11 14:17 , "Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> wrote:

>On 6/2/2011 8:54 PM, Avi Lior wrote:
>
>...
>
>>>> Therefore, regarding Vendor-Id.
>>>>
>>>> Since WiMAX is the vendor of the WiMAX DIameter Application and Cisco
>>>>is
>>>> only the device vendor then Vendor-Id attribute should be set to WiMAX
>>>> Forum.
>>>
>>> Nope.  In this case, the Vendor-Id should be set to Cisco & an instance
>>> of the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP (RFC 3588, Section 6.11) must
>>> be included, set to WiMAX Forum.  If a "server" running on a
>>> multipurpose computer or appliance, the Vendor-Id should be set to, for
>>> example, Open Diameter but still the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id
>>>must
>>> be present.
>>=20
>> I know that is what you *think* should go in -- I don't disagree -- but
>> you asked what is wrong with the text and I am telling you that when you
>> read the text it instructs you to put the Vendor Id of the Diameter
>> Application and in no way can I come to your conclusion (the correct
>>one)
>> by the text in 3588.
>
>OK, it actually says "Diameter application"; there's a difference.  IIRC
>there was a debate about the wording here.  I think that it originally
>said "Diameter software" but somebody pointed out that in a NAS, router,
>etc. it would actually be "Diameter firmware" but nobody liked "Diameter
>software or firmware" so "application" was taken as a compromise,
>apparently incorrectly.
>
>...
>
>>>> So that is what is wrong with the text in section 5.3.3
>>>>
>>>> If we want to align the text to your interpretation of the text I
>>>> suggest
>>>> we re-write to explicitly state what we mean potentially as follows:
>>>>
>>>> From:
>>>> The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>>>>    the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes"
>>>>[ASSIGNNO]
>>>>    value assigned to the vendor of the Diameter application.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TO:
>>>>  The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>>>>    the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes"
>>>>[ASSIGNNO]
>>>>    value assigned to the vendor of the implementor of the  Diameter
>>>> application.=20
>>>>
>>>> Even Better (using the text from 5.3.6)
>>>> The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>>>> the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>>>> value assigned to the device vendor.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's better, but there is the possibility on the "server" side
>>> (on the "client" side, too, I suppose, but that seems less likely) that
>>> the vendor of the base protocol code is different from the creator of
>>> the application code, right?  For example, someone might build a
>>>plug-in
>>> for an existing base Diameter server to implement the WiMAX
>>>application.
>>> So maybe "assigned to the Diameter software vendor" might be better?
>>=20
>> Perhaps.  The stack and application(s) on top of it is all software to
>>me.
>>  To me the statement is saying (not the hardware vendor) I.e., not Sun
>>or
>> IBM etc... But I wouldn't think that anyone would think that putting
>>down
>> the hardware.
>>=20
>> In situations that you are mentioning where the stack and applications
>>are
>> different.  Then we do have an issue.  If what we are using this
>> information for is to learn which extensions I can use on the next hop
>>and
>> if those extensions apply to either or both the stack and the
>>application
>> then I would need to convey both vendor's (stack and application) to the
>> next hop.  There are no instructions on how to use these 'tools'.  In
>>this
>> case we could put one vendor id in the Vendor-Id attribute, the other in
>> the Supported-Vendor attribute.
>
>We could, but that would be wrong IMHO: if it is a vendor-specific app
>then there is an AVP specifically designed to carry that information,
>the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id.  The Supported-Vendor-ID AVP is
>specifically used to advertise support for vendor-specific AVPs, _not_
>apps.
>
>...


From gwz@net-zen.net  Thu Jun  2 12:23:07 2011
Return-Path: <gwz@net-zen.net>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD1AE0860 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 12:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dDe9f0utvakn for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 12:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpauth20.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth20.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B30F9E0853 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 12:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 18000 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2011 19:23:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (115.87.113.44) by smtpauth20.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.36) with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2011 19:23:05 -0000
Message-ID: <4DE7E313.10405@net-zen.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 02:22:59 +0700
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
Organization: Network Zen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org,  draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@tools.ietf.org
References: <CA0D51AB.1879F%avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA0D51AB.1879F%avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040508090804000304050601"
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:23:07 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040508090804000304050601
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/3/2011 1:56 AM, Avi Lior wrote:

> Okay so lets recap:
> 
> We seem to agree that the wording for Vendor ID should be changed to:
> The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
> the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
> value assigned to the Diameter software vendor.
> 
> We need an errata? 

It's pretty minor, maybe we can just stick it in 3588bis.

...

--------------040508090804000304050601
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
 name="gwz.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="gwz.vcf"

begin:vcard
fn:Glen Zorn
n:Zorn;Glen
org:Network Zen
adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA
email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net
tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617
note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C  2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F 
version:2.1
end:vcard


--------------040508090804000304050601--

From avi@bridgewatersystems.com  Thu Jun  2 14:18:39 2011
Return-Path: <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E1AE08BD for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 14:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ll4Xr+s-4w2k for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 14:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail29.messagelabs.com (mail29.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC4CE0895 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 14:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: avi@bridgewatersystems.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-29.messagelabs.com!1307049517!90777377!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [72.35.6.119]
Received: (qmail 27032 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2011 21:18:38 -0000
Received: from mail.bridgewatersystems.com (HELO webmail.bridgewatersystems.com) (72.35.6.119) by server-13.tower-29.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Jun 2011 21:18:38 -0000
Received: from m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.148]) by m679t01.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.144]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:18:35 -0400
From: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>, "dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:18:33 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id
Thread-Index: AcwhaqFZmtxVs/AGT5ycT+fNnpQizQ==
Message-ID: <CA0D7662.189E4%avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DE7E313.10405@net-zen.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-exclaimer-md-config: f069778a-5a3c-4a57-aa01-0f5f3f2623e3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:18:40 -0000

Works for me.

-- Avi Lior
--Bridgewater Systems






On 02-06-11 15:22 , "Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> wrote:

>On 6/3/2011 1:56 AM, Avi Lior wrote:
>
>> Okay so lets recap:
>>=20
>> We seem to agree that the wording for Vendor ID should be changed to:
>> The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains
>> the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO]
>> value assigned to the Diameter software vendor.
>>=20
>> We need an errata?
>
>It's pretty minor, maybe we can just stick it in 3588bis.
>
>...


From tom111.taylor@bell.net  Thu Jun  2 15:23:23 2011
Return-Path: <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7662E084E for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 15:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.796
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0RtRlyiuw+Kw for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 15:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s36.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s36.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20126E084D for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 15:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP76 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s36.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:23:22 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [76.70.76.63]
X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP768A8C2969C514BFD12D22D87C0@phx.gbl>
Received: from [192.168.2.17] ([76.70.76.63]) by BLU0-SMTP76.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:23:22 -0700
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 18:23:28 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dime@ietf.org
References: <80F9AC969A517A4DA0DE3E7CF74CC1BB425B20@MSIS-GH1-UEA06.corp.nsa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <80F9AC969A517A4DA0DE3E7CF74CC1BB425B20@MSIS-GH1-UEA06.corp.nsa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2011 22:23:22.0245 (UTC) FILETIME=[AEAD4B50:01CC2173]
Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26: circular definition?
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 22:23:23 -0000

That looked good at first, but I think all you've done is add 
authorization to the existing definition. It's still circular. Or are 
you proposing to remove the definition of transport connection. I'd 
support that.

On 02/06/2011 8:18 AM, Igoe, Kevin M. wrote:
> Glen Zorn&  I have been having a sidebar discussion on the circularity
>
> of the following pair of definitions in draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26.
>
>
>
> Existing definitions:
>
>
>
>     Diameter Peer
>
>
>
>        If a Diameter Node shares a direct transport connection with
>
>        another Diameter Node, it is a Diameter Peer to that Diameter
>
>        Node.
>
>
>
>
>
>    Transport Connection
>
>        A transport connection is a TCP or SCTP connection existing
>        directly between two Diameter peers, otherwise known as a Peer-to-
>        Peer Connection.
>
>
> We propose the following change to the definition of Diameter Peer
>
> that removes the circularity and emphasizes the need to verify the node
>
> is properly authorized before accepting it as a peer and entering it
> into
>
> the Peer list (as discussed in section 5.2).
>
>
>
> Proposed definition:
>
>
>
>     Diameter Peer
>
>
>
>                  Two Diameter Nodes are Peers if and only if a properly
>
>        authorized transport (TCP or SCTP) connection exists between
>
>        them.
>
>
>
>
>
> Comments/discussion appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin M. Igoe   |   "Everyone is entitled to their own
> kmigoe@nsa.gov<mailto:kmigoe@nsa.gov>    |    opinions, but not to their
> own facts."
>                  |       - Daniel Patrick Moynihan -
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

From tom111.taylor@bell.net  Fri Jun  3 09:29:42 2011
Return-Path: <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA9CE07A5 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 09:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.796
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7oCKen+QzfHV for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 09:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s11.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s11.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B47CE0795 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 09:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP62 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s11.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:29:32 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [76.70.76.63]
X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP622D3F9047AF8ED92C2A34D87F0@phx.gbl>
Received: from [192.168.2.17] ([76.70.76.63]) by BLU0-SMTP62.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:29:31 -0700
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 12:29:36 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jun 2011 16:29:31.0924 (UTC) FILETIME=[6AD52540:01CC220B]
Subject: [Dime] Fwd: RE: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26: circular definition?
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:29:42 -0000

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26: circular definition?
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:31:51 -0400
From: Igoe, Kevin M. <kmigoe@nsa.gov>
To: Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net>

I'd recommend taking out the definition of transport connection, but
I'm worried that might break something somewhere else in the text.
What is the opinion of the mailing list on this option?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Tom Taylor
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 6:23 PM
> To: dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26: circular
definition?
>
> That looked good at first, but I think all you've done is add
> authorization to the existing definition. It's still circular. Or are
> you proposing to remove the definition of transport connection. I'd
> support that.
>
> On 02/06/2011 8:18 AM, Igoe, Kevin M. wrote:
> > Glen Zorn&  I have been having a sidebar discussion on the
> circularity
> >
> > of the following pair of definitions in draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-
> 26.
> >
> >
> >
> > Existing definitions:
> >
> >
> >
> >     Diameter Peer
> >
> >
> >
> >        If a Diameter Node shares a direct transport connection with
> >
> >        another Diameter Node, it is a Diameter Peer to that Diameter
> >
> >        Node.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >    Transport Connection
> >
> >        A transport connection is a TCP or SCTP connection existing
> >        directly between two Diameter peers, otherwise known as a
> Peer-to-
> >        Peer Connection.
> >
> >
> > We propose the following change to the definition of Diameter Peer
> >
> > that removes the circularity and emphasizes the need to verify the
> node
> >
> > is properly authorized before accepting it as a peer and entering it
> > into
> >
> > the Peer list (as discussed in section 5.2).
> >
> >
> >
> > Proposed definition:
> >
> >
> >
> >     Diameter Peer
> >
> >
> >
> >                  Two Diameter Nodes are Peers if and only if a
> properly
> >
> >        authorized transport (TCP or SCTP) connection exists between
> >
> >        them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Comments/discussion appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kevin M. Igoe   |   "Everyone is entitled to their own
> > kmigoe@nsa.gov<mailto:kmigoe@nsa.gov>    |    opinions, but not to
> their
> > own facts."
> >                  |       - Daniel Patrick Moynihan -
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DiME mailing list
> > DiME@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime



From victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com  Tue Jun  7 02:58:30 2011
Return-Path: <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211B911E8081 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 02:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6uDm-Ks6gza3 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 02:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EBC811E807A for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 02:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so5703109iwn.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 02:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gDEeXMfTzI+JxAFkr59FLK2xq7bdPhCVk1Nx3E8XzQM=; b=Ry6XE83oNfl+3aiApiKo1ZAgCFsm70lVmuMN9pq1gHeyKJ7pPgmueCUJRw7vmDBojp nXqT6DrRKJnXLt1irEVw0eC/jR77n7Pj7LJAKRw+4D2EymGIVeNWi0L1THd9CsEvKQER zDxJ+tfTnY3wkqSk7qbJmrZMcvi8HimpK4+jk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=qOM0iAzIZomqP5xrd4wujFeUTtDCq7bBEC+9ftvmA3Yq1fOOxkcQQL4hAfRXJOp0Tu mqXHDRZGqRBaHGhIs9Sp4ZKsYAYxLBnsszjuuwc9rT92fYX5xfcEv3w5GyCDWis8LxAc FOjiQIOo7bewimlWL0YCBTlGvROgULRr8zd3M=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.117.35 with SMTP id o35mr9538748ibq.149.1307440708738; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 02:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.37.67 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 02:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:58:28 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTik6ehKiKTx==q+v6=cN77oywZvHfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Victor Pascual Avila <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [Dime] Plan to finish draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis?
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:58:30 -0000

Hi,

What's the plan to finish draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis?

Many thanks in advance,
--=20
Victor Pascual =C3=81vila

From yaronf.ietf@gmail.com  Fri Jun  3 13:32:08 2011
Return-Path: <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722B7E07BE; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 13:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i0Vy8MeZBvm9; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 13:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05A7E07AB; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 13:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so1954647wyb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ys9/a6FOLVsH1YDb4viHsfWjgcRNUhxyv/K7HQA0Gek=; b=TK29CrE+wR2+npw9gG9QvbErnDgLbTgO/8v84HfOSKcG7hGB9BefqpmDljMDWmG2PV BaM9gkeokZPm+LLOoZeIZhC64svVkf4pJErJeBKMjzwyuH1W2FCWdHOglFyfxZRL6H9P NCZGvczViT8Vnd6gSa1Xemlm2jd+l7MEsBxUQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pDFWUmDIrIKCLYM5iU0+qasB2IlJ7jjkz5H5kpHVOnOaf+4fHm2m5i+JRA+qZnnyPi FLnZDkVR3lRoOBkYrTTar1Gxp42lUtfC7YYI89kTI4+U4bbUbNpGwbf7Uwa8XzPr5vOH a3TiNIli5D7MhEzoxmRSPb5rHH4rOmhWtwr1M=
Received: by 10.227.132.210 with SMTP id c18mr2355829wbt.44.1307133125437; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.2] (bzq-79-178-38-173.red.bezeqint.net [79.178.38.173]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id et5sm1267260wbb.33.2011.06.03.13.32.02 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DE944C1.5020608@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 23:32:01 +0300
From: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)" <violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20110520135022.1622.22713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DD9581C.3070900@gmail.com> <AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A625099F98E2@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A625099F98E2@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 08:26:58 -0700
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt> (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 20:32:08 -0000

Hi Violeta,

thanks for your response.

I understand now where you're coming from. But the next person to read 
the document might not have the authors so readily available :-) 
Implementors need to understand the motivation for this solution as well 
as the missing pieces.

So I would suggest that you add:
- A short paragraph in the Introduction putting this document in 
perspective and referencing (non-normative references of course) the 
3GGP2 documents.
- Another paragraph in the Security Considerations that says that 
generation/derivation of the PSK is security-critical, and provides the 
3GPP2 docs again as an example of a solution to this problem.

Regarding usage of the SPI, the document says: "Upon receiving the 
IKE_AUTH message from the IKEv2 Peer, the IKEv2 Server uses the 
information received in IDi *and the SPI* if available, to determine if 
it has the PSK for this IKEv2 Peer."This sounds to me as if the SPI is 
used as part of the PSK lookup operation. Maybe the SPI should not be 
mentioned in the above text.

Best regards,

     Yaron

On 06/01/2011 11:04 PM, Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta) wrote:
> Hi Yaron,
> Thanks for the comments.
> Please see inline [VC].
>
> -Violeta
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:38 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: IPsecme WG; draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.og; dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Last Call:<draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt>  (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard
>
> Hi,
>
> Having read this document only now, I think there's a number of serious issues with it. This document was sent to the ipsec mailing list a while ago but unfortunately got no review.
>
> Summary:
> 1. I think the wrong architectural choice was made, in preferring PSK over EAP authentication.
> 2. There is not enough detail in the document to result in interoperable implementations.
> [VC] Please see responses to detailed comments.
>
> Detailed comments:
> * The appropriate ref for IKEv2 is RFC 5996. This was actually noted in the shepherd review back in March.
> [VC] This is fixed in v7.
>
>
> * The document notes that EAP is one of the authentication modes supported by IKEv2. EAP is designed for interaction with backend AAA servers, and is quite capable of performing shared-secret authentication, using a variety of EAP methods (and see also RFC 5998, on IKEv2 mutual auth with EAP). Yet the document does not explain why EAP is not used, instead preferring the IKE PSK authentication method.
> [VC] Diameter application for Diameter client to server communication for IKEv2 with EAP has been specified in RFC 5778. However, there is no Diameter application specified for IKE PSK authentication method. This is stated in the draft both in Abstract and Introduction. The draft does not recommend one or the other, it is simply specifying what is not specified. It is up to a specific use case to decide what to use. For example 3GPP2 decided to use IKEv2 PSK (in 2 of its specifications), and that is what triggered this effort in IETF.
>
>
> * 4.1: how can the incoming SPI be used to identify the peer?
> [VC] As stated in Section 4.1 IDi payload is extracted from the IKE_AUTH message and this payload 'MUST contain an identity that is meaningful
>     for the Diameter infrastructure, such as a Network Access Identifier (NAI), since it is used by the IKEv2 Server to populate the User-Name
>     AVP in the Diameter message'. SPI is not used to identify the peer.
>
>
> * Packing additional semantics into SPI may conflict with elements of the IPsec architecture (see for example Sec. 9.3 of draft-ietf-ipsecme-failure-detection-08).
> [VC] Agreed.
>
>
> * 4.1, 2nd paragraph: generation of the PSK is central to this solution, so it cannot be "outside the scope" of the document. There is no way to interoperate otherwise.
> [VC] This draft focuses on IKEv2 server, as a Diameter client, to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 with pre-
>     shared secret based authentication, and specifies Diameter application for this communication. It is left to specifications that make use of this Diameter application to specify where the PSK comes from and how it is generated. As mentioned above, there are two 3GPP2 specs that make use of this Diameter application and both of those specs specify generation of the PSK.
>
>
> * Moreover, if a single client is expected to sometimes use EAP and sometimes PSK, there must be a way to notify it which one to use.
> [VC] This is not the assumption. Again this draft specifies Diameter application for Diameter client to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 with PSK. IKEv2 server knows whether EAP or PSK is used.
>
>
> * How does key-lifetime relate to the lifetime of the IKE SA?
> [VC] This should be the same as in RFC 5996, how pre-shared secret lifetime relates to the lifetime of the IKE SA. This draft should not make any changes.
>
>
> * Sec. 10 refers to the PSK as a "session key" which is incorrect, as PSK is only used for authentication and does not encrypt anything.
> [VC] Good point. It is changed to PSK in v7.
>
>
> * The same paragraph is very vague about the security properties of PSK.
> RFC 5996 takes PSK much more seriously, e.g. "When using pre-shared keys, a critical consideration is how to assure the randomness of these secrets." Again, I believe the document should specify how the PSK is derived.
> [VC] I absolutely agree that derivation of PSK is critical. However, as stated above, this draft specifies Diameter application only. Therefore, security consideration section cannot include much more details on derivation of PSK as it is specified elsewhere.
>
>
> * Why "if nonces are included" where the document says that they *must* be included (in the AVP occurrence table).
> [VC] Good point. This is removed in v7.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Yaron
>
> On 05/20/2011 04:50 PM, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and
>> Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document:
>> - 'Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server
>>      to Diameter Server Interaction'
>>     <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt>   as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-03. Exceptionally, comments may
>> be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>>      The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) is a component
>>      of the IPsec architecture and is used to perform mutual
>>      authentication as well as to establish and to maintain IPsec security
>>      associations (SAs) between the respective parties.  IKEv2 supports
>>      several different authentication mechanisms, such as the Extensible
>>      Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates, and pre-shared secrets.
>>
>>      With [RFC5778] the Diameter interworking for Mobile IPv6 between the
>>      Home Agent, as a Diameter client, and the Diameter server has been
>>      specified.  However, that specification focused on the usage of EAP
>>      and did not include support for pre-shared secret based
>>      authentication available with IKEv2.  This document specifies IKEv2
>>      server, as a Diameter client, to the Diameter server communication
>>      for IKEv2 with pre-shared secret based authentication.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/
>>
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/
>>
>>
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

From jouni.nospam@gmail.com  Tue Jun  7 10:58:16 2011
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9EF421F85A3 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 10:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SHETIG8ug-ue for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 10:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0633F21F85A0 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 10:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so4806145vws.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:date:references:to:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=vNpDQYlDzdw48W5jNKiu5I35mZRWWOc8qhFZ+VV/Lt8=; b=XuMaLtK3IPpaEw0U1r4jU/qavDQUmGsxuD3W2YBZ3WJFMSEkZqPdPiclM1Twu1Yx1b bvblfjwvYh32NR2zYNFYjbZdBc8NxLlnlv0Be1l8dzWhQWEX5nUAVnJ4ALmE2KtptfkI 4vzqG0uOXxp+NPsLxoiWtc7WjCH9ruBCwLXRk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; b=O42YFIcK6ueZY+WKx0Ar6t+nKUaBD+kOVhEkRnPAOF7LS9FqqJ0fA1bVOSEprYfA5T wFSOalEyh8UswrxD/jSUDaR2NqVS8NLgh/gDd3doXnxCa0/9VRPFfu1EfqosDLXotAFl ozuINf3Rw0NTr3aGRXCr4y966/PbU2CBtXA2E=
Received: by 10.52.177.70 with SMTP id co6mr79024vdc.92.1307469494951; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.188] (user-12ld0fj.cable.mindspring.com [69.86.129.243]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z5sm1828520vdv.16.2011.06.07.10.58.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 20:58:13 +0300
References: <5E434E92-2EB7-43B3-A29F-8410B1AC23AE@nostrum.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Message-Id: <2986AAE8-6642-4568-B5A8-0522D6D6CF82@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: [Dime] Fwd: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-07
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:58:16 -0000

FYI to the WG as well.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
> Date: June 3, 2011 11:09:47 PM GMT+03:00
> To: draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter.all@tools.ietf.org, =
"gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>
> Cc: The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-07
>=20
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on =
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at =
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>=20
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments =
you may receive.
>=20
> Document: draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-07
> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
> Review Date: 2011-06-03
> IETF LC End Date: 2011-06-03
>=20
>=20
> Summary:
>=20
> This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I =
have a question concerning the procedure for generating PSKs, and a =
number of minor and editorial comments.
>=20
>=20
> Major issues:
>=20
> The draft says that the procedure that the HAAA follows to generate =
the PSK is out of scope. But doesn't the IKE2 initiator need to =
understand the procedure? If the procedure is not defined somewhere, how =
you achieve any degree of interoperability?
>=20
>=20
> Minor issues:
>=20
> -- section 4.1, 1st paragraph:"The IDi payload extracted from the =
IKE_AUTH message MUST contain an identity that is meaningful for the =
Diameter infrastructure, such as a Network Access Identifier (NAI), =
since it is used by the IKEv2 Server to populate the User-Name AVP in =
the Diameter message. "
>=20
> Do you mean that as a normative MUST, or a statement of fact? If =
normative, isn't that a requirement on the initiator?
>=20
> -- section 10:
>=20
> The security considerations should describe the threat models. We're =
talking about requesting an authentication key from a third party, which =
is tricky from a security perspective. Does the PSK have greater =
security concerns than for Diameter AVPs in general? In particular, what =
are the consequences if the PSK is disclosed or tampered with?=20
>=20
> -- section 10, 1st paragraph: "Furthermore, any agents that process =
IKEv2-PSK-Answer messages can see the contents of the Key AVP. For this =
reason, this specification strongly recommends avoiding Diameter agents =
when they cannot be trusted to keep the keys secret."
>=20
> Should that be normative? Is there no way to protect the PSK AVP from =
diameter agents? E.g. can it be encrypted?
>=20
> -- section 10, 2nd paragraph: "this specification also recommends the =
use of nonces included in IKEv2-PSK-Request."
>=20
> Actually, the spec requires it using a normative SHALL.
>=20
>=20
> Nits/editorial comments:
>=20
> -- IDNits reports an out-of-date reference
>=20
> -- Section 1, general:
>=20
> It's probably worth elaborating that we are talking about a PSK used =
during the IKEv2 authentication process, which is distinct from any =
shared secrets negotiated by IKE for use in the resulting SA.
>=20
> -- Section 1, paragraph 1, 1st sentence:
>=20
> The use, and lack of, commas in this sentence is confusing. It's easy =
to parse as saying IKE2 is a protocol and a set of algorithms, when I =
think you meant to say that the resulting SA has a set of algorithms =
along with the shared secret.
>=20
> -- section 4.1, 2nd paragraph: "message is routed to the IKEv2 Peer=92s =
HAAA."
>=20
> What routes it? ( be careful not to let passive voice obscure =
responsibilities)
>=20
> -- section 4.2, paragraph 1: "The HAAA may maintain state or may be =
stateless"
>=20
> What kind of state? I assume from the following sentences you mean =
Diameter session state, but it should be explicit.
>=20
> -- "indicated by presence or absence of the Auth-Session-State AVP."
>=20
> In what message(s)?
>=20
> -- section 4.2, paragraph 2:
>=20
> This sentence is long and hard to parse. Can it be broken up?
>=20
> -- section 5.1, last paragraph: "SHALL be used to identify the =
appropriate PSK."
>=20
> Shall be used by what? (passive voice obscures responsibility)
>=20
> -- 5.2, last paragraph: "associated key SHALL NOT be used if the =
lifetime has expired."
>=20
> SHALL NOT be used by what?
>=20
> -- section 8, first paragraph: "whether the AVP MAY be encrypted."
>=20
> I don't see anything about encryption in the table.
>=20
> -- section 8, AVP table:
>=20
> Are all the Key* AVPs intended to have the same code? I assume not, =
but mixing in TBD with the various TBD* placeholders is confusing.
>=20
> -- section 9:
>=20
> Consider a note to the RFC editor to change all occurances of TBD(x) =
with the IANA assignment throughout the entire document. Since these are =
scattered throughout the doc, the intent may not be obvious to them.
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


From naveen.sarma@gmail.com  Fri Jun 10 02:16:38 2011
Return-Path: <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D0421F851C for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jibtbNplVdVd for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C6521F851B for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so1699711fxm.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=4dujeP60pkUTxU762YDjp/ppluoWIeXpvT+soPnMvzQ=; b=l3mUnvj2NliOgvd8+oIaHPv7ZoW7/b04aQfQXSxAZCSbSIOQfGo1Mdgxpjojtp+Auu fiQGgKjQwXbUu9IDFRYrqDYIH+N4Y4OwGS9II2vaTjFMsVmBxFne0R4Gcsk0yoidKtdm hue0Tu1L0ZpK+rbw2BF5eBzHKszW1O/rcFneI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=GDZEoRdpKV7hKZb8zpUxcpJRw+DOwbhzoVHBwt6Jj+bG0NpoKGrlK4Mv/r8tBJTZnJ CBt5oFSG11NT+HqsaxaHDWq7DvKV77NHiGO0mE9CKNA50x96VwKyHa1ojhaUwjcEt1F+ UmcQ0QRdh43qWDGSEhE67ecIbtHACyNkEW4hY=
Received: by 10.223.79.151 with SMTP id p23mr1772125fak.78.1307697390110; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.81.72 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:46:10 +0530
Message-ID: <BANLkTikq=i8ORZvWDtd3GNVfeCn5Xv1bUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015173ff29c69477704a55806b5
Subject: [Dime] Clashing AVP codes
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:16:38 -0000

--0015173ff29c69477704a55806b5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hey!

There are two AVPs (Filter-Id, 3GPP-Session-Stop-Indicator) defined in 3GPP
specification 32.299 with same value 11.  Can anyone tell which one of them
is the correct one?

Yours,
Naveen.

--0015173ff29c69477704a55806b5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><font face=3D"garamond,serif">Hey!</font></div><div><font face=3D"gara=
mond,serif"></font>=A0</div><div><font face=3D"garamond,serif">There are tw=
o AVPs (Filter-Id, <span style=3D"font-family: &quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;san=
s-serif&quot;; font-size: 10pt;">3GPP-Session-Stop-Indicator) </span>define=
d in 3GPP specification 32.299 with same value 11.=A0 Can anyone tell which=
 one of them is the correct one?</font></div>

<div><font face=3D"garamond,serif"></font>=A0</div><div><font face=3D"garam=
ond,serif">Yours,<br>Naveen.<br>
</font></div>

--0015173ff29c69477704a55806b5--

From lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com  Fri Jun 10 02:52:49 2011
Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2C511E80E4 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.248
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QOEOMlHIl53h for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A27A11E80A2 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id BC63C7B8003; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:54:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE04D7B8001; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:54:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:52:46 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC2754.26873E64"
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:52:45 +0200
Message-ID: <B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F5779FF213@ftrdmel1>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikq=i8ORZvWDtd3GNVfeCn5Xv1bUg@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Clashing AVP codes
thread-index: AcwnTyyoZJso3pTnTYOkyEV70CubzQAAwetw
References: <BANLkTikq=i8ORZvWDtd3GNVfeCn5Xv1bUg@mail.gmail.com>
From: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>, <dime@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jun 2011 09:52:46.0839 (UTC) FILETIME=[26C9B070:01CC2754]
Subject: Re: [Dime] Clashing AVP codes
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:52:49 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CC2754.26873E64
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Naveen,

=20

Both codes are correct! J

"Filter-Id" (Code 11) is an IETF standard AVP whereas =
"3GPP-Session-Stop-Indicator" is a vendor-specific AVP defined by 3GPP =
i.e. (defined with the code 11 under the Vendor-id=3D 10415).

The "V" bit is set and the vendor-id field is present in the header of =
vendor-specific AVP (that allows to distinguish them from standard AVP).

=20

The Standard code value range is distinct from the vendor-specific code =
value range. So, you don't have to consider only the code value but also =
in which range the AVP is defined.

=20

Best Regards,

=20

Lionel

=20

De : dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de =
Naveen Kottapalli
Envoy=E9 : vendredi 10 juin 2011 11:16
=C0 : dime@ietf.org
Objet : [Dime] Clashing AVP codes

=20

Hey!

=20

There are two AVPs (Filter-Id, 3GPP-Session-Stop-Indicator) defined in =
3GPP specification 32.299 with same value 11.  Can anyone tell which one =
of them is the correct one?

=20

Yours,
Naveen.


------_=_NextPart_001_01CC2754.26873E64
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word =
12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Wingdings;
	panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
	{font-family:SimSun;
	panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
	{font-family:SimSun;
	panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:"\@SimSun";
	panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Garamond;
	panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DFR link=3Dblue =
vlink=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>Hi Naveen,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>Both codes are correct!&nbsp;</span><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D'>J</span><s=
pan lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>&#8220;Filter-Id&#8221; (Code 11) is an IETF standard AVP whereas =
&#8220;3GPP-Session-Stop-Indicator&#8221; is a vendor-specific AVP =
defined by 3GPP i.e. (defined with the code 11 under the =
Vendor-id=3D</span><span lang=3DEN-US> </span><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>10415).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>The &#8220;V&#8221; bit is set and the vendor-id field is present in =
the header of vendor-specific AVP (that allows to distinguish them from =
standard AVP).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>The Standard code value range is distinct from the vendor-specific =
code value range. So, you don&#8217;t have to consider only the code =
value but also in which range the AVP is =
defined.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>Lionel<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><div =
style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm =
0cm 0cm'><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>De&nbsp;:</s=
pan></b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> =
dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] <b>De la part =
de</b> Naveen Kottapalli<br><b>Envoy=E9&nbsp;:</b> vendredi 10 juin 2011 =
11:16<br><b>=C0&nbsp;:</b> dime@ietf.org<br><b>Objet&nbsp;:</b> [Dime] =
Clashing AVP codes<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-family:"Garamond","serif"'>Hey!</span><o:p></o:p></p></div>=
<div><p class=3DMsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-family:"Garamond","serif"'>There =
are two AVPs (Filter-Id, </span><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>3GPP-Session=
-Stop-Indicator) </span><span =
style=3D'font-family:"Garamond","serif"'>defined in 3GPP specification =
32.299 with same value 11.&nbsp; Can anyone tell which one of them is =
the correct one?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-family:"Garamond","serif"'>Yours,<br>Naveen.</span><o:p></o=
:p></p></div></div></body></html>
------_=_NextPart_001_01CC2754.26873E64--

From dromasca@avaya.com  Mon Jun 13 03:59:46 2011
Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C1D11E80B6 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 03:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.824
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.775, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fvaQhzrE3nzO for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 03:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1EA11E8075 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 03:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYBAE7t9U2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABShEmTCY19bHetUAKKWZAHgSuDb4EKBJYginM
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,357,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="251058390"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2011 06:59:43 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,357,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="665459895"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2011 06:59:42 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:59:41 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040339A776@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik6ehKiKTx==q+v6=cN77oywZvHfA@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Plan to finish draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis?
Thread-Index: Acwk+Xnq04gkhx/wThCuMoKeBenvRwEv2b6g
References: <BANLkTik6ehKiKTx==q+v6=cN77oywZvHfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Victor Pascual Avila" <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>, <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Plan to finish draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis?
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:59:46 -0000
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From jouni.nospam@gmail.com  Mon Jun 13 14:00:44 2011
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0345E9E8009 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q327GSYobzCi for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100CD9E8007 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so2178999eye.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=D85lqCq5kUgdXlqYbgPYn7MqqjM/AGV6txMp31QIig0=; b=Ylv4qFeaEavd/kWj0siVZT6M/mOAv1mfPAopsm1scHEcrOVF4emJM+pWbYY2/BV1/Q CTFfsDR0l7VMctgrRcX638vWTYlYnjW/BnniH4e5i4ke+wf/6yKzdC2Nc3+gKk+PyXbn xO3shn/A66dSUU1BXmkDDz33x3P5836HzpSQo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=u8DUihm2zKWc/i0PaQJpGQBd9fzjm9cvJ0CY+hIcubreZULz5nEdG8fe/E25mcMmqx /cgLUFFEA3pg9DlsjvGUv58dvJpADflQr4bSGGhmVV8HqlvbA8z0bO77UoM+0SOvlsaJ M/6ZKbWDYInZGr22eDe3tS5t8xmX6j8qWVgQw=
Received: by 10.213.30.3 with SMTP id s3mr1386363ebc.99.1307998841736; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a88-114-67-79.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-67-79.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.67.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a41sm5531224eeg.21.2011.06.13.14.00.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040339A776@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:00:38 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <543AF4F7-F5BE-4009-AC28-0B26ACD7E802@gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTik6ehKiKTx==q+v6=cN77oywZvHfA@mail.gmail.com> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040339A776@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Plan to finish draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis?
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:00:44 -0000

Hi,

I am basically waiting until the NAPTR & SRV DISCUSS with extended-naptr =
draft gets solved as RFC3588bis will have the same issue.

- Jouni


On Jun 13, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

>=20
>=20
> Hi DIME chairs and participants,=20
>=20
> Your AD would also like to know the answer to this question :-)
>=20
> Thanks and Regards,
>=20
> Dan=20
>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf =
Of
>> Victor Pascual Avila
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:58 PM
>> To: dime@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Dime] Plan to finish draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis?
>>=20
>> Hi,
>>=20
>> What's the plan to finish draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis?
>>=20
>> Many thanks in advance,
>> --
>> Victor Pascual =C1vila
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime


From jouni.nospam@gmail.com  Mon Jun 13 16:41:51 2011
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB7A21F85C7 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tvtun5hzQjaA for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A81F21F85E0 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so2211679ewy.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:date:references:to:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=sr5Ls7ahtDv3zL79x/ogkYAU0dQYyBoY6rTFY7l1KHU=; b=R0V4b0qBBDDDh3iCzyic12eo+eDNN7k27rh30i+vj/QPQugJcfhkDeQst/ra09m7Eu A1ikm6WAT8sSgew/+vJwYExdwNaTOWefPxNcreuNUY4c+Xmiapf1JtGas5K6BNfdWw9H FeV1XRl6/I7OiezHroYlaeFCBT/Y77+qgQDfg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; b=tzBcNws1Jn2KqY0JJEk/egtvcbdm0qdNmBYUq+9uNYhLhW9CGGQn/JsZVYzSi5TWgp O/OJSLOMKbCHbkTRgHuqkurlX8N6vOhR85bpA3Rpgyc4nPLjQ5mmUEBWJXryxRStD5uI ZA2W6FNgyQPlYn7wzuWjRZUVcsbi2/28ZmsjY=
Received: by 10.213.110.203 with SMTP id o11mr2879296ebp.82.1308008509366; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a88-114-67-79.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-67-79.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.67.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p80sm5628794eeb.25.2011.06.13.16.41.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 02:41:46 +0300
References: <20110611025606.F14E521F84B1@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Message-Id: <653811AD-381F-4050-88B3-BF5E0B2CCECE@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: [Dime] Fwd: Nomcom 2011-12: Call for Volunteers
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:41:51 -0000

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

> From: NomCom Chair <nomcom-chair@ietf.org>
> Date: June 11, 2011 5:56:06 AM GMT+03:00
> To: IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> Subject: Nomcom 2011-12: Call for Volunteers 
> 
> The IETF nominating committee process for 2011-12 has begun. The IETF
> nominating committee appoints folks to fill the open slots on the
> IAOC, the IAB, and the IESG. The 10 nominating committee members are
> selected randomly from a pool of volunteers. The more volunteers, the
> better the chance we have of choosing a random yet representative
> cross section of the IETF population.  The details of the nomcom
> process can be found in RFC 3777.
> 
> To be eligible, volunteers for the nomcom need to have attended 3 of
> the past 5 IETF meetings as of the time this announcement goes out
> (i.e. IETF76-IETF80). If you qualify, and are not seeking appointment
> to any of the open positions this nomcom will be filling, please
> consider volunteering.
> 
> The list of people and posts whose terms end with the March 2012 IETF
> meeting, and thus the positions for which the nominating committee is
> responsible, are as follows:
> 
> IAB
> ===
> 
> Bernard Aboba
> Hannes Tschofenig
> Andrei Robachevsky
> Olaf Kolkman
> Spencer Dawkins
> Ross Callon
> 
> IAOC
> ====
> 
> Marshall Eubanks
> 
> IESG
> ====
> 
> Peter Saint-Andre (Applications)
> Jari Arkko (Internet)
> Dan Romascanu (Operations & Management)
> Gonzalo Camarillo (RAI)
> Stewart Bryant (Routing)
> Sean Turner (Security)
> David Harrington (Transport)
> 
> 
> The primary activity for this nomcom will begin during IETF-81 in
> Quebec City and should be completed by January 2012. The nomcom will
> be collecting requirements from the community, as well as talking to
> candidates and to community members about candidates. There will be
> regularly scheduled conference calls to ensure progress. Thus, being a
> nomcom member does require some time commitment.
> 
> Please volunteer by sending an email to me before 
> 11:59 pm EDT July 10, 2011 as follows:
> 
> To: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
> Subject: Nomcom 2011-12 Volunteer
> 
> Please include the following information in the body of the mail:
> 
> Full Name:  // As you enter in the IETF Registration Form,
>            // First/Given name followed by Last/Family Name
> 
> Current Primary Affiliation: // typically what goes in the Company 
>                             // field in the IETF Registration Form
> 
> Email Address(es): // all email addresses used to Register for the 
>                   // past 5 IETF meetings
> 		   // Please designate a Preferred email address for
>                   // contact if there is more than one email address
> 
> Telephone number:  // With country code (for confirmation if selected)
> 
> Please expect an email response from me within 3 business days stating
> whether or not you are qualified.  If you do not receive a response in
> this timeframe, please re-send your email with the tag "RESEND:" added
> to the subject line.
> 
> If you are not yet sure you would like to volunteer, please consider
> that nomcom members play a very important role in shaping the
> leadership of the IETF.  Ensuring the leadership of the IETF is fair
> and balanced and comprised of those who can lead the IETF in the right
> direction is an important responsibility that rests on the IETF
> participants at large. Volunteering for the nomcom is a good way of
> contributing in that direction.
> 
> I will be publishing a more detailed target timetable, as well as
> details of the randomness seeds to be used for the RFC 3797 selection
> process within the next few days.
> 
> Thank you in advance for your participation.
> 
> Suresh Krishnan
> Nomcom Chair 2011-2012
> Email: nomcom-chair@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce


From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Mon Jun 13 19:29:33 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DA111E80C4; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.579
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Efz1+WyrP-w3; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7E111E8075; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55
Message-ID: <20110614022932.5267.54705.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:29:32 -0700
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-06.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 02:29:33 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W=
orking Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Diameter Base Protocol MIB
	Author(s)       : Glen Zorn
                          Subash T. Comerica
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-06.txt
	Pages           : 51
	Date            : 2011-06-13

   Along with providing support for certain basic authentication,
   authorization and accounting functions, the Diameter protocol is
   designed to provide a framework for AAA applications.

   This document defines the Management Information Base (MIB) module
   which describes the minimum set of objects needed to manage an
   implementation of the Diameter protocol.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-=
mib-06.txt

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

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-m=
ib-06.txt

From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Tue Jun 14 11:33:05 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1FE11E8181; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.477
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rQ-kh9a2ggoV; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A851C11E8144; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55
Message-ID: <20110614183304.7032.62524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:33:04 -0700
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-08.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:33:05 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W=
orking Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Key-based Support for IKE=
v2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction
	Author(s)       : Violeta Cakulev
                          Avi Lior
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-08.txt
	Pages           : 18
	Date            : 2011-06-14

   The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) is a component
   of the IPsec architecture and is used to perform mutual
   authentication as well as to establish and to maintain IPsec security
   associations (SAs) between the respective parties.  IKEv2 supports
   several different authentication mechanisms, such as the Extensible
   Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates, and pre-shared keys.

   Diameter interworking for Mobile IPv6 between the Home Agent, as a
   Diameter client, and the Diameter server has been specified.
   However, that specification focused on the usage of EAP and did not
   include support for pre-shared key based authentication available
   with IKEv2.  This document specifies IKEv2 server, as a Diameter
   client, to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 with pre-
   shared key based authentication.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-08.t=
xt

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

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-08.txt

From violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com  Tue Jun 14 11:41:51 2011
Return-Path: <violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1F811E80CE; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NMNf8+JOuY3d; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F49D11E8072; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p5EIfn6n018254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:41:49 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.110]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p5EIfmV5019498 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:41:48 -0500
Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.126]) by USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.110]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:41:48 -0500
From: "Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)" <violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:41:35 -0500
Thread-Topic: [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt> (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AcwiLU6FhyJ9Tdc6S5CFRmbevpIxTwIlHqyQ
Message-ID: <AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A6250A4F815C@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20110520135022.1622.22713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DD9581C.3070900@gmail.com> <AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A625099F98E2@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <4DE944C1.5020608@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DE944C1.5020608@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt> (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:41:52 -0000

Hi Yaron,
Thanks for the suggestions.
Please see inline.

-Violeta

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:32 PM
To: Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; IPsecme WG; dime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-dia=
meter@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt>=
 (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to D=
iameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard

Hi Violeta,

thanks for your response.

I understand now where you're coming from. But the next person to read the =
document might not have the authors so readily available :-) Implementors n=
eed to understand the motivation for this solution as well as the missing p=
ieces.
[VC] And the next person indeed had the same concern. Therefore, in v8 we m=
ade the changes as proposed below.


So I would suggest that you add:
- A short paragraph in the Introduction putting this document in perspectiv=
e and referencing (non-normative references of course) the
3GGP2 documents.
- Another paragraph in the Security Considerations that says that generatio=
n/derivation of the PSK is security-critical, and provides the
3GPP2 docs again as an example of a solution to this problem.
[VC] Please see v8. We added statements both in Introduction and Security C=
onsiderations as proposed above.

Regarding usage of the SPI, the document says: "Upon receiving the IKE_AUTH=
 message from the IKEv2 Peer, the IKEv2 Server uses the information receive=
d in IDi *and the SPI* if available, to determine if it has the PSK for thi=
s IKEv2 Peer."This sounds to me as if the SPI is used as part of the PSK lo=
okup operation. Maybe the SPI should not be mentioned in the above text.
[VC] We modified this paragraph in v8. Please see v8.

Best regards,

     Yaron

On 06/01/2011 11:04 PM, Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta) wrote:
> Hi Yaron,
> Thanks for the comments.
> Please see inline [VC].
>
> -Violeta
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Yaron Sheffer
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:38 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: IPsecme WG; draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.og;
> dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Last
> Call:<draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt>  (Diameter IKEv2 PSK:
> Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server
> Interaction) to Proposed Standard
>
> Hi,
>
> Having read this document only now, I think there's a number of serious i=
ssues with it. This document was sent to the ipsec mailing list a while ago=
 but unfortunately got no review.
>
> Summary:
> 1. I think the wrong architectural choice was made, in preferring PSK ove=
r EAP authentication.
> 2. There is not enough detail in the document to result in interoperable =
implementations.
> [VC] Please see responses to detailed comments.
>
> Detailed comments:
> * The appropriate ref for IKEv2 is RFC 5996. This was actually noted in t=
he shepherd review back in March.
> [VC] This is fixed in v7.
>
>
> * The document notes that EAP is one of the authentication modes supporte=
d by IKEv2. EAP is designed for interaction with backend AAA servers, and i=
s quite capable of performing shared-secret authentication, using a variety=
 of EAP methods (and see also RFC 5998, on IKEv2 mutual auth with EAP). Yet=
 the document does not explain why EAP is not used, instead preferring the =
IKE PSK authentication method.
> [VC] Diameter application for Diameter client to server communication for=
 IKEv2 with EAP has been specified in RFC 5778. However, there is no Diamet=
er application specified for IKE PSK authentication method. This is stated =
in the draft both in Abstract and Introduction. The draft does not recommen=
d one or the other, it is simply specifying what is not specified. It is up=
 to a specific use case to decide what to use. For example 3GPP2 decided to=
 use IKEv2 PSK (in 2 of its specifications), and that is what triggered thi=
s effort in IETF.
>
>
> * 4.1: how can the incoming SPI be used to identify the peer?
> [VC] As stated in Section 4.1 IDi payload is extracted from the IKE_AUTH =
message and this payload 'MUST contain an identity that is meaningful
>     for the Diameter infrastructure, such as a Network Access Identifier =
(NAI), since it is used by the IKEv2 Server to populate the User-Name
>     AVP in the Diameter message'. SPI is not used to identify the peer.
>
>
> * Packing additional semantics into SPI may conflict with elements of the=
 IPsec architecture (see for example Sec. 9.3 of draft-ietf-ipsecme-failure=
-detection-08).
> [VC] Agreed.
>
>
> * 4.1, 2nd paragraph: generation of the PSK is central to this solution, =
so it cannot be "outside the scope" of the document. There is no way to int=
eroperate otherwise.
> [VC] This draft focuses on IKEv2 server, as a Diameter client, to the Dia=
meter server communication for IKEv2 with pre-
>     shared secret based authentication, and specifies Diameter applicatio=
n for this communication. It is left to specifications that make use of thi=
s Diameter application to specify where the PSK comes from and how it is ge=
nerated. As mentioned above, there are two 3GPP2 specs that make use of thi=
s Diameter application and both of those specs specify generation of the PS=
K.
>
>
> * Moreover, if a single client is expected to sometimes use EAP and somet=
imes PSK, there must be a way to notify it which one to use.
> [VC] This is not the assumption. Again this draft specifies Diameter appl=
ication for Diameter client to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 =
with PSK. IKEv2 server knows whether EAP or PSK is used.
>
>
> * How does key-lifetime relate to the lifetime of the IKE SA?
> [VC] This should be the same as in RFC 5996, how pre-shared secret lifeti=
me relates to the lifetime of the IKE SA. This draft should not make any ch=
anges.
>
>
> * Sec. 10 refers to the PSK as a "session key" which is incorrect, as PSK=
 is only used for authentication and does not encrypt anything.
> [VC] Good point. It is changed to PSK in v7.
>
>
> * The same paragraph is very vague about the security properties of PSK.
> RFC 5996 takes PSK much more seriously, e.g. "When using pre-shared keys,=
 a critical consideration is how to assure the randomness of these secrets.=
" Again, I believe the document should specify how the PSK is derived.
> [VC] I absolutely agree that derivation of PSK is critical. However, as s=
tated above, this draft specifies Diameter application only. Therefore, sec=
urity consideration section cannot include much more details on derivation =
of PSK as it is specified elsewhere.
>
>
> * Why "if nonces are included" where the document says that they *must* b=
e included (in the AVP occurrence table).
> [VC] Good point. This is removed in v7.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Yaron
>
> On 05/20/2011 04:50 PM, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and
>> Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document:
>> - 'Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server
>>      to Diameter Server Interaction'
>>     <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt>   as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
>> the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-03. Exceptionally,
>> comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please
>> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>>      The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) is a component
>>      of the IPsec architecture and is used to perform mutual
>>      authentication as well as to establish and to maintain IPsec securi=
ty
>>      associations (SAs) between the respective parties.  IKEv2 supports
>>      several different authentication mechanisms, such as the Extensible
>>      Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates, and pre-shared secrets=
.
>>
>>      With [RFC5778] the Diameter interworking for Mobile IPv6 between th=
e
>>      Home Agent, as a Diameter client, and the Diameter server has been
>>      specified.  However, that specification focused on the usage of EAP
>>      and did not include support for pre-shared secret based
>>      authentication available with IKEv2.  This document specifies IKEv2
>>      server, as a Diameter client, to the Diameter server communication
>>      for IKEv2 with pre-shared secret based authentication.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/
>>
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/
>>
>>
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

From yaronf.ietf@gmail.com  Tue Jun 14 13:18:50 2011
Return-Path: <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F751F0C3D; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.141
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K3ndS0ORcAYx; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C441F0C3C; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so4805610wyb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jpL3B0w/WgZrufXFcv9pxf5HJ/32ZhGoIMIe/CCOrbQ=; b=gG93W42Ap92IWp1wI69RAn9otmQkuOWkXP5urfIfmcoOuLnSq6PbPnU6rLQE/0nQvn tlV3ywszIosHVfaU9B/EJLfSHgAmgwOSOzcc67DwicSl9qs0OwnhXOHsY66SQScWHlOm mHsc8PzKzDHlqK/qrB10jPkEcVHBUHkyp401k=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=erH1i6xaww9DtEm/OMtWaHHxO5FuNAK+vX15X/vpaUFrvKfP8I0pkMk1KS5Ga5GhNS 3Lr28VZ9YZGtZc/L7Blch+Gou/Ndu1+ScqNm7I59V1wIfjgj1PMvB+2iQjBF9Uf3etOv T6k32fRppULVzDNZSUoYyElBtKVEtbWL3ZVFs=
Received: by 10.227.166.129 with SMTP id m1mr6821922wby.65.1308082726759; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.2] (bzq-79-183-225-187.red.bezeqint.net [79.183.225.187]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fm14sm5305523wbb.41.2011.06.14.13.18.43 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DF7C222.5030808@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 23:18:42 +0300
From: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110516 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)" <violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20110520135022.1622.22713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DD9581C.3070900@gmail.com> <AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A625099F98E2@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <4DE944C1.5020608@gmail.com> <AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A6250A4F815C@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A6250A4F815C@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:42:00 -0700
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt> (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:18:50 -0000

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
    <title></title>
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
    Hi Violeta,<br>
    <br>
    I am fine with the latest version of the document.<br>
    <br>
    Thank you,<br>
    <br>
    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Yaron<br>
    <br>
    On 06/14/2011 09:41 PM, Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta) wrote:
    <blockquote
cite="mid:AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A6250A4F815C@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">
Hi Yaron,
Thanks for the suggestions.
Please see inline.

-Violeta

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Sheffer [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com">mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com</a>]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:32 PM
To: Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ietf@ietf.org">ietf@ietf.org</a>; IPsecme WG; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dime@ietf.org">dime@ietf.org</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org">draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org</a>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Last Call: &lt;draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt&gt; (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard

Hi Violeta,

thanks for your response.

I understand now where you're coming from. But the next person to read the document might not have the authors so readily available :-) Implementors need to understand the motivation for this solution as well as the missing pieces.
[VC] And the next person indeed had the same concern. Therefore, in v8 we made the changes as proposed below.


So I would suggest that you add:
- A short paragraph in the Introduction putting this document in perspective and referencing (non-normative references of course) the
3GGP2 documents.
- Another paragraph in the Security Considerations that says that generation/derivation of the PSK is security-critical, and provides the
3GPP2 docs again as an example of a solution to this problem.
[VC] Please see v8. We added statements both in Introduction and Security Considerations as proposed above.

Regarding usage of the SPI, the document says: "Upon receiving the IKE_AUTH message from the IKEv2 Peer, the IKEv2 Server uses the information received in IDi *and the SPI* if available, to determine if it has the PSK for this IKEv2 Peer."This sounds to me as if the SPI is used as part of the PSK lookup operation. Maybe the SPI should not be mentioned in the above text.
[VC] We modified this paragraph in v8. Please see v8.

Best regards,

     Yaron

On 06/01/2011 11:04 PM, Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta) wrote:
</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Hi Yaron,
Thanks for the comments.
Please see inline [VC].

-Violeta

-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org">ipsec-bounces@ietf.org</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org">mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org</a>] On Behalf
Of Yaron Sheffer
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:38 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ietf@ietf.org">ietf@ietf.org</a>
Cc: IPsecme WG; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.og">draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.og</a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dime@ietf.org">dime@ietf.org</a>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Last
Call:&lt;draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt&gt;  (Diameter IKEv2 PSK:
Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server
Interaction) to Proposed Standard

Hi,

Having read this document only now, I think there's a number of serious issues with it. This document was sent to the ipsec mailing list a while ago but unfortunately got no review.

Summary:
1. I think the wrong architectural choice was made, in preferring PSK over EAP authentication.
2. There is not enough detail in the document to result in interoperable implementations.
[VC] Please see responses to detailed comments.

Detailed comments:
* The appropriate ref for IKEv2 is RFC 5996. This was actually noted in the shepherd review back in March.
[VC] This is fixed in v7.


* The document notes that EAP is one of the authentication modes supported by IKEv2. EAP is designed for interaction with backend AAA servers, and is quite capable of performing shared-secret authentication, using a variety of EAP methods (and see also RFC 5998, on IKEv2 mutual auth with EAP). Yet the document does not explain why EAP is not used, instead preferring the IKE PSK authentication method.
[VC] Diameter application for Diameter client to server communication for IKEv2 with EAP has been specified in RFC 5778. However, there is no Diameter application specified for IKE PSK authentication method. This is stated in the draft both in Abstract and Introduction. The draft does not recommend one or the other, it is simply specifying what is not specified. It is up to a specific use case to decide what to use. For example 3GPP2 decided to use IKEv2 PSK (in 2 of its specifications), and that is what triggered this effort in IETF.


* 4.1: how can the incoming SPI be used to identify the peer?
[VC] As stated in Section 4.1 IDi payload is extracted from the IKE_AUTH message and this payload 'MUST contain an identity that is meaningful
    for the Diameter infrastructure, such as a Network Access Identifier (NAI), since it is used by the IKEv2 Server to populate the User-Name
    AVP in the Diameter message'. SPI is not used to identify the peer.


* Packing additional semantics into SPI may conflict with elements of the IPsec architecture (see for example Sec. 9.3 of draft-ietf-ipsecme-failure-detection-08).
[VC] Agreed.


* 4.1, 2nd paragraph: generation of the PSK is central to this solution, so it cannot be "outside the scope" of the document. There is no way to interoperate otherwise.
[VC] This draft focuses on IKEv2 server, as a Diameter client, to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 with pre-
    shared secret based authentication, and specifies Diameter application for this communication. It is left to specifications that make use of this Diameter application to specify where the PSK comes from and how it is generated. As mentioned above, there are two 3GPP2 specs that make use of this Diameter application and both of those specs specify generation of the PSK.


* Moreover, if a single client is expected to sometimes use EAP and sometimes PSK, there must be a way to notify it which one to use.
[VC] This is not the assumption. Again this draft specifies Diameter application for Diameter client to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 with PSK. IKEv2 server knows whether EAP or PSK is used.


* How does key-lifetime relate to the lifetime of the IKE SA?
[VC] This should be the same as in RFC 5996, how pre-shared secret lifetime relates to the lifetime of the IKE SA. This draft should not make any changes.


* Sec. 10 refers to the PSK as a "session key" which is incorrect, as PSK is only used for authentication and does not encrypt anything.
[VC] Good point. It is changed to PSK in v7.


* The same paragraph is very vague about the security properties of PSK.
RFC 5996 takes PSK much more seriously, e.g. "When using pre-shared keys, a critical consideration is how to assure the randomness of these secrets." Again, I believe the document should specify how the PSK is derived.
[VC] I absolutely agree that derivation of PSK is critical. However, as stated above, this draft specifies Diameter application only. Therefore, security consideration section cannot include much more details on derivation of PSK as it is specified elsewhere.


* Why "if nonces are included" where the document says that they *must* be included (in the AVP occurrence table).
[VC] Good point. This is removed in v7.


Thanks,
Yaron

On 05/20/2011 04:50 PM, The IESG wrote:
</pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and
Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document:
- 'Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server
     to Diameter Server Interaction'
    &lt;draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt&gt;   as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ietf@ietf.org">ietf@ietf.org</a> mailing lists by 2011-06-03. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:iesg@ietf.org">iesg@ietf.org</a> instead. In either case, please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


     The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) is a component
     of the IPsec architecture and is used to perform mutual
     authentication as well as to establish and to maintain IPsec security
     associations (SAs) between the respective parties.  IKEv2 supports
     several different authentication mechanisms, such as the Extensible
     Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates, and pre-shared secrets.

     With [RFC5778] the Diameter interworking for Mobile IPv6 between the
     Home Agent, as a Diameter client, and the Diameter server has been
     specified.  However, that specification focused on the usage of EAP
     and did not include support for pre-shared secret based
     authentication available with IKEv2.  This document specifies IKEv2
     server, as a Diameter client, to the Diameter server communication
     for IKEv2 with pre-shared secret based authentication.




The file can be obtained via
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/">http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/</a>

IESG discussion can be tracked via
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/">http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/</a>


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:IETF-Announce@ietf.org">IETF-Announce@ietf.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce</a>
</pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:IPsec@ietf.org">IPsec@ietf.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec</a>
</pre>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>

From yaronf.ietf@gmail.com  Tue Jun 14 13:47:09 2011
Return-Path: <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C9021F84C4; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.87
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.729, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0VVan5xvlTGW; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BBF021F84C1; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so4223736wwa.13 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5cCkchvKjej11qUKUxC7mqTDWCUb31Nlh2JM0SAgGRA=; b=rT41ILV9lnTjsNzfN2ha9VehVkmFUnlU22unhLLBO0VMRLSFmS4qOOBaQmdb8p1mR6 GRGqGWAQaFSJNBkAfLqXN2YMVau3jZIZxpaB5Z1OpFpx82g/ZkgFgvPI+sIk5UxZpyl6 WVPkHVh6NFIAolwZl7Vbr1dq92Q9VMzKQhLSQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=XKu+nU68viLYozunUPQ99dGp4xXpQZUMPNg6uQQJYuj0jH04va9UPfUPGZa7mSm5EB EuaW6UowGQqW7bA7HRvBu5q5uRNVDseqv/xZEh37iOu4DSnBterqbZBEOPWom0CzqloW 2X9Vby00qUumx2JfstwIHSFfSFZrkZtqcjW/0=
Received: by 10.227.12.18 with SMTP id v18mr189682wbv.89.1308084424449; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.2] (bzq-79-183-225-187.red.bezeqint.net [79.183.225.187]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fm14sm5322493wbb.41.2011.06.14.13.47.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DF7C8C3.7020303@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 23:46:59 +0300
From: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110516 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)" <violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20110520135022.1622.22713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DD9581C.3070900@gmail.com> <AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A625099F98E2@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <4DE944C1.5020608@gmail.com> <AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A6250A4F815C@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <4DF7C222.5030808@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DF7C222.5030808@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:42:01 -0700
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [IPsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt> (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:47:09 -0000

Resending, apologies if you see it twice.

On 06/14/2011 11:18 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Hi Violeta,
>
> I am fine with the latest version of the document.
>
> Thank you,
>
>     Yaron
>
> On 06/14/2011 09:41 PM, Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta) wrote:
>> Hi Yaron,
>> Thanks for the suggestions.
>> Please see inline.
>>
>> -Violeta
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:32 PM
>> To: Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)
>> Cc:ietf@ietf.org; IPsecme WG;dime@ietf.org;draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Last Call:<draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt>  (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard
>>
>> Hi Violeta,
>>
>> thanks for your response.
>>
>> I understand now where you're coming from. But the next person to read the document might not have the authors so readily available :-) Implementors need to understand the motivation for this solution as well as the missing pieces.
>> [VC] And the next person indeed had the same concern. Therefore, in v8 we made the changes as proposed below.
>>
>>
>> So I would suggest that you add:
>> - A short paragraph in the Introduction putting this document in perspective and referencing (non-normative references of course) the
>> 3GGP2 documents.
>> - Another paragraph in the Security Considerations that says that generation/derivation of the PSK is security-critical, and provides the
>> 3GPP2 docs again as an example of a solution to this problem.
>> [VC] Please see v8. We added statements both in Introduction and Security Considerations as proposed above.
>>
>> Regarding usage of the SPI, the document says: "Upon receiving the IKE_AUTH message from the IKEv2 Peer, the IKEv2 Server uses the information received in IDi *and the SPI* if available, to determine if it has the PSK for this IKEv2 Peer."This sounds to me as if the SPI is used as part of the PSK lookup operation. Maybe the SPI should not be mentioned in the above text.
>> [VC] We modified this paragraph in v8. Please see v8.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>       Yaron
>>
>> On 06/01/2011 11:04 PM, Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta) wrote:
>>> Hi Yaron,
>>> Thanks for the comments.
>>> Please see inline [VC].
>>>
>>> -Violeta
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org  [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>>> Of Yaron Sheffer
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:38 PM
>>> To:ietf@ietf.org
>>> Cc: IPsecme WG;draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.og;
>>> dime@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Last
>>> Call:<draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt>   (Diameter IKEv2 PSK:
>>> Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server
>>> Interaction) to Proposed Standard
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Having read this document only now, I think there's a number of serious issues with it. This document was sent to the ipsec mailing list a while ago but unfortunately got no review.
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>> 1. I think the wrong architectural choice was made, in preferring PSK over EAP authentication.
>>> 2. There is not enough detail in the document to result in interoperable implementations.
>>> [VC] Please see responses to detailed comments.
>>>
>>> Detailed comments:
>>> * The appropriate ref for IKEv2 is RFC 5996. This was actually noted in the shepherd review back in March.
>>> [VC] This is fixed in v7.
>>>
>>>
>>> * The document notes that EAP is one of the authentication modes supported by IKEv2. EAP is designed for interaction with backend AAA servers, and is quite capable of performing shared-secret authentication, using a variety of EAP methods (and see also RFC 5998, on IKEv2 mutual auth with EAP). Yet the document does not explain why EAP is not used, instead preferring the IKE PSK authentication method.
>>> [VC] Diameter application for Diameter client to server communication for IKEv2 with EAP has been specified in RFC 5778. However, there is no Diameter application specified for IKE PSK authentication method. This is stated in the draft both in Abstract and Introduction. The draft does not recommend one or the other, it is simply specifying what is not specified. It is up to a specific use case to decide what to use. For example 3GPP2 decided to use IKEv2 PSK (in 2 of its specifications), and that is what triggered this effort in IETF.
>>>
>>>
>>> * 4.1: how can the incoming SPI be used to identify the peer?
>>> [VC] As stated in Section 4.1 IDi payload is extracted from the IKE_AUTH message and this payload 'MUST contain an identity that is meaningful
>>>      for the Diameter infrastructure, such as a Network Access Identifier (NAI), since it is used by the IKEv2 Server to populate the User-Name
>>>      AVP in the Diameter message'. SPI is not used to identify the peer.
>>>
>>>
>>> * Packing additional semantics into SPI may conflict with elements of the IPsec architecture (see for example Sec. 9.3 of draft-ietf-ipsecme-failure-detection-08).
>>> [VC] Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>> * 4.1, 2nd paragraph: generation of the PSK is central to this solution, so it cannot be "outside the scope" of the document. There is no way to interoperate otherwise.
>>> [VC] This draft focuses on IKEv2 server, as a Diameter client, to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 with pre-
>>>      shared secret based authentication, and specifies Diameter application for this communication. It is left to specifications that make use of this Diameter application to specify where the PSK comes from and how it is generated. As mentioned above, there are two 3GPP2 specs that make use of this Diameter application and both of those specs specify generation of the PSK.
>>>
>>>
>>> * Moreover, if a single client is expected to sometimes use EAP and sometimes PSK, there must be a way to notify it which one to use.
>>> [VC] This is not the assumption. Again this draft specifies Diameter application for Diameter client to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 with PSK. IKEv2 server knows whether EAP or PSK is used.
>>>
>>>
>>> * How does key-lifetime relate to the lifetime of the IKE SA?
>>> [VC] This should be the same as in RFC 5996, how pre-shared secret lifetime relates to the lifetime of the IKE SA. This draft should not make any changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> * Sec. 10 refers to the PSK as a "session key" which is incorrect, as PSK is only used for authentication and does not encrypt anything.
>>> [VC] Good point. It is changed to PSK in v7.
>>>
>>>
>>> * The same paragraph is very vague about the security properties of PSK.
>>> RFC 5996 takes PSK much more seriously, e.g. "When using pre-shared keys, a critical consideration is how to assure the randomness of these secrets." Again, I believe the document should specify how the PSK is derived.
>>> [VC] I absolutely agree that derivation of PSK is critical. However, as stated above, this draft specifies Diameter application only. Therefore, security consideration section cannot include much more details on derivation of PSK as it is specified elsewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>> * Why "if nonces are included" where the document says that they *must* be included (in the AVP occurrence table).
>>> [VC] Good point. This is removed in v7.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yaron
>>>
>>> On 05/20/2011 04:50 PM, The IESG wrote:
>>>> The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and
>>>> Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document:
>>>> - 'Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server
>>>>       to Diameter Server Interaction'
>>>>      <draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt>    as a Proposed Standard
>>>>
>>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
>>>> theietf@ietf.org  mailing lists by 2011-06-03. Exceptionally,
>>>> comments may be sent toiesg@ietf.org  instead. In either case, please
>>>> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>>>
>>>> Abstract
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) is a component
>>>>       of the IPsec architecture and is used to perform mutual
>>>>       authentication as well as to establish and to maintain IPsec security
>>>>       associations (SAs) between the respective parties.  IKEv2 supports
>>>>       several different authentication mechanisms, such as the Extensible
>>>>       Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates, and pre-shared secrets.
>>>>
>>>>       With [RFC5778] the Diameter interworking for Mobile IPv6 between the
>>>>       Home Agent, as a Diameter client, and the Diameter server has been
>>>>       specified.  However, that specification focused on the usage of EAP
>>>>       and did not include support for pre-shared secret based
>>>>       authentication available with IKEv2.  This document specifies IKEv2
>>>>       server, as a Diameter client, to the Diameter server communication
>>>>       for IKEv2 with pre-shared secret based authentication.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The file can be obtained via
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/
>>>>
>>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>>>> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IPsec mailing list
>>> IPsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Fri Jun 17 02:18:22 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F019E8015; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.546
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aWuRpvn4yQao; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD029E8005; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55
Message-ID: <20110617091821.20216.64971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:18:21 -0700
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-11.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:18:22 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W=
orking Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Tra=
nsport
	Author(s)       : Glen Zorn
                          Qin Wu
                          Violeta Cakulev
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-11.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2011-06-17

   Some Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) applications
   require the transport of cryptographic keying material.  This
   document specifies a set of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) providing
   native Diameter support of cryptographic key delivery.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-11.txt

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

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-11.txt

From Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu  Tue Jun 21 07:39:07 2011
Return-Path: <Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FCF411E8174 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gUP1fymQ6WWs for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de (smtp0.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D33F11E814E for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E3A2800018A; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:39:02 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office.hd)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3GTHskfHSz8L; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:39:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (ENCELADUS.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28FF28000189; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:38:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.1.99.64] (10.1.99.64) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:38:21 +0200
Message-ID: <4E00ACDD.9020103@neclab.eu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:38:21 +0200
From: Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch@neclab.eu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <dime@ietf.org>
References: <4DF0C15D.6010009@neclab.eu>	 <1307633949.3367.30.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4DF0EB0F.3060600@neclab.eu> <1308645578.3312.33.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <1308645578.3312.33.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.1.99.64]
Cc: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter extension for PMIPv6 localized routing
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:39:07 -0000

Please find below a review from Carlos about draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.
I forwarded this eMail to the DIME list. If you reply, please maintain
Carlos' eMail address in the recipients list.

marco




Am 21.06.2011 10:39, schrieb Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano:
> Hi Marco,
>
> Here are my comments (apologies for the delay):
>
> I think the document is well written and I didn't find any major issue
> with the solution itself (although I'm not a security expert). I have
> some minor comments/questions:
>
> - I think Figure 1 would benefit from some redesign, as to me it's a bit
> misleading. It is not clear what the arrows mean and the IP addresses
> 'a' and 'b' are also unclear (is 'a' the address of LMA2 and 'b' the
> address of LMA1? if so, it seems awkward).
>
> - Page 5: "but share the same LMA the interaction between LMA1
> interaction and the AAA server should" -->  "but share the same LMA, the
> interaction between LMA1 and the AAA server should"
>
> - Page 6: "The Diameter server checks if localized routing is allowed
> between MAG1 and MAG2" -->  does the server checks that or that LR is
> allowed between MN1 and MN2? because the signaling does not explicitly
> includes MAGs' addresses, but MNs' ones. Besides, from a conceptual
> viewpoint, do we need authorization for LR for a given pair of MNs or
> for a given pair of MAGs?
>
> - In Figures 2 and 3, the LR signaling on the LMA2/MAG2 side is not
> shown (but only on LMA1/MAG1). I think it'd help to show the whole
> picture.
>
> - Page 7: "the data packet from MN1 to MN2 and requesting" -->  I think
> is the other way around (to be also consistant with Figure 3): "the data
> packet from MN2 to MN1 and requesting"
>
> - Page 8: "is LMA2. MAG1 or LMA may solicit" -->  "is LMA2. MAG1 or LMA1
> may solicit"
>
> - In Figure 5, both cases of MAG1 or LMA1 soliciting the LR (i.e.,
> sending the LRI and receiving the LRA message) are shown, but it might
> lead to confusion if the reader just looks at the picture. Maybe
> something can be added to the Figure to mention that it is one case or
> the other. There is also missing the arrow head for the LRA(MAG2)
> message.
>
> - I think it might be necessary to make more explicit that this document
> addresses Scenario A22 of draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps (which is not
> cover in draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr). What about Scenario A21? this seems
> to be covered by both this document and draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr,
> right?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carlos
>



From tom111.taylor@bell.net  Wed Jun 22 09:41:37 2011
Return-Path: <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FC811E809F for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.474
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.278, BAYES_50=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C5bEE3kkhrfa for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s36.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s36.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA3011E807E for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP82 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s36.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:41:36 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [65.94.104.44]
X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP8207E707DAFC7F4B63A6F9D8500@phx.gbl>
Received: from [192.168.2.17] ([65.94.104.44]) by BLU0-SMTP82.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:41:35 -0700
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:41:34 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2011 16:41:35.0836 (UTC) FILETIME=[402A99C0:01CC30FB]
Subject: [Dime] Suitability of Diameter
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:41:37 -0000

Is Diameter suitable for an application that could require sending 3-4 
messages per second?

Tom Taylor

From jouni.nospam@gmail.com  Wed Jun 22 13:22:47 2011
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAED11E815B for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iyxEinVpKhrN for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AAF911E808B for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so1191373bwz.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=UCpRWp1gZNiBEdAUGVK8oSEVFiT1+EvlirajUhNMOoo=; b=Am/8dZaAodgDVcTVN47k4Ev2fPadKEXOprT0kGAl9z0I2IJ/nugTUOZO9MJkLsfpuC fFyzaPhHv4xT1DIRE0drYrJ2sthgfNWG2rD2++C2V7XkXUnzhLVDEAQ4zmxHZklcz5pJ lBauTIl4B2N/v3XO01Iid1n23U46YjDR07vI8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=WqsO/0HQ88Lnav+R11g+z3s9MqpLn/34wkIYqth0wc5qo2fSk2JWaVbgVk/1teVp5E 5YiPXieDnhMISPd2zZWZszBD8KfberEIYQ5xmie5p0bx3gQMCzEwbTAZSdIzDOPKJNUB PaNlTcV6OFUHDx9Y89obpBfAQ2ITGDfLXSkys=
Received: by 10.204.48.140 with SMTP id r12mr116939bkf.51.1308774165460; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a88-114-168-36.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-168-36.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.168.36]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r19sm121718bkr.14.2011.06.22.13.22.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP8207E707DAFC7F4B63A6F9D8500@phx.gbl>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:22:42 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <24889A4F-DD71-4871-9E9F-842DF6250DF3@gmail.com>
References: <BLU0-SMTP8207E707DAFC7F4B63A6F9D8500@phx.gbl>
To: Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Suitability of Diameter
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:22:47 -0000

Depends on the processing each message needs, actually. What kind of =
data volumes you are expecting per "client"?

- Jouni

On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Tom Taylor wrote:

> Is Diameter suitable for an application that could require sending 3-4 =
messages per second?
>=20
> Tom Taylor
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime


From jouni.nospam@gmail.com  Wed Jun 22 21:35:49 2011
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5BD9E8043 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id paaZi5TPAXcp for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4BC9E8012 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so1457133bwz.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=ktx6BsrX6Ss/PyV4vuL+KJXD+KgwoQhddca5vuf/0kg=; b=oZhy2jijvPABvsntj6OcQHmyz+snZeRVcbBlN6W6q66iWd5LspybGoyOcaTc8vSjHy JOwOkRPB4ExHcjr4JcmwD/H7VIRaZqdQyGmGFjwxx9NCh91LU2RILJk5F9Z7WgZ1n0UO Xi4rqWMc62LcOR8OfNG3ylupYPThvspsioF9A=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=PpEWxjyDykKUkXbNEoKi5kVdj5BdXMCd1FnQReXUVx8SuHNj/p3PltR+CWAXQts/uh xR92AD31QBoty6hoVL0r0lG7gZO8UlvXjkzjJw8wFj1uTd+aEqiM2CQLgErIwDwQOyVE aC2ymCDW3jYGtljG3xowAM+6uekvFY94kQqtg=
Received: by 10.204.32.207 with SMTP id e15mr433057bkd.60.1308803731579; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gprs-prointernet-fff56a00-96.dhcp.inet.fi (gprs-prointernet-fff56a00-96.dhcp.inet.fi [93.106.245.96]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm876692faz.0.2011.06.22.21.35.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:35:26 +0300
Message-Id: <DE2409AF-A556-4A87-92BD-2C1D207A782D@gmail.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] Agenda Items for IETF81 Dime meeting
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 04:35:49 -0000

Folks,

We will have a WG meeting in Quebec. If you wish to present something, =
new or existing work, send a request to the chairs. Include the title, =
what, why and needed time in your request.

- Jouni & Lionel



From sunseawq@huawei.com  Thu Jun 23 00:50:50 2011
Return-Path: <sunseawq@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B96B21F850C for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.358
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.447,  BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS=0.041, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k8auaB33zOjW for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0C821F850B for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LN8005XIGD3MV@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:39 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LN80019EGD22A@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:39 +0800 (CST)
Received: from w53375q ([10.138.41.76]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LN800ASKGD046@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:38 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:36 +0800
From: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
To: Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch@neclab.eu>, dime@ietf.org
Message-id: <4A904CC63A3F4423BFC92522B0FBB7A5@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <4DF0C15D.6010009@neclab.eu> <1307633949.3367.30.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4DF0EB0F.3060600@neclab.eu> <1308645578.3312.33.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4E00ACDD.9020103@neclab.eu>
Cc: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter extension for PMIPv6 localized routing
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:50:50 -0000
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From lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com  Mon Jun 27 02:05:24 2011
Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7259C21F864B for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 02:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nlDFBipUKbyL for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 02:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77EAF21F863F for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 02:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 40095FC4004 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:05:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BF3FC4001 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:05:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:05:21 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:05:20 +0200
Message-ID: <B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F577A975E2@ftrdmel1>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Nomcom 2011-2012: Second Call for Volunteers
thread-index: Acwym0O4SuAYd6aXRNiOZh5GPkgZ/wBRSp4gADICSnA=
From: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: <dime@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2011 09:05:21.0976 (UTC) FILETIME=[5823CB80:01CC34A9]
Subject: [Dime] TR: Nomcom 2011-2012: Second Call for Volunteers
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:05:24 -0000

Dear WG members,=20

Please consider seriously for volunteering to this second call for
Nomcom.=20

This activity is very important in the process for the
selection of the best leadership of the IETF and the continuous
improvement of the IETF processes.

BR,

Lionel & Jouni=20

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Suresh Krishnan
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 9:13 PM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Nomcom 2011-2012: Second Call for Volunteers

This is the Second call for Volunteers for the 2011-12 Nomcom.  We are
just about halfway through the volunteer period so if you are
considering
volunteering, please do so very soon.

We have had a very good response to the initial call for volunteers and
I am pleased to report that we have 50 volunteers thus far whose
qualifications have been confirmed by the secretariat. I have notified
each of these volunteers by email.

However, we would like to have many more volunteers. The more
volunteers,
the better chance we have of choosing a random yet representative cross
section of the IETF population. You have until 11:59 pm EDT July 10,
2011
to volunteer for Nomcom but it would be much better if you can volunteer
as early as possible.

If you volunteered before 21:00 EDT on June 21 to serve as a voting
member
and have not received a confirmation email from me, please re-submit and
bring to my attention right away!

Details about the process for volunteering for the Nomcom and the list
of open positions for which the nominating committee is responsible are
summarized in the initial announcement:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ann/nomcom/2938/

The 50 volunteers who have thus far been qualified by the secretariat
are:

Alia Atlas , Juniper Networks
Lixia Zhang , UCLA
Wassim Haddad  , Ericsson
Glen Zorn , Network Zen
Richard Barnes , BBN Technologies
Stephen Kent , BBN Technologies
Scott Mansfield , Ericsson
Tina TSOU , FutureWei Technologies
Fernando Gont , UTN/FRH
Karen Seo , BBN Technologies
Jie Dong , Huawei Technologies
Mach Chen , Huawei Technologies Co.
Sheng Jiang , Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
Dimitri Papadimitriou , Alcatel-Lucent
Thomas D. Nadeau , CA Technologies
David Meyer , Cisco Systems/University of Oregon
Wesley George , Time Warner Cable
Cullen Jennings , Cisco
Stephen Hanna , Juniper Networks
Stephan Wenger , Bidyo
Keyur Patel , Cisco Systems
Michael Hamilton , BreakingPoint Systems
Behcet Sarikaya , Huawei USA
Mark Townsley , Cisco Systems
Fred Baker , Cisco Systems
Brian Trammell , ETH Zurich
Sam Hartman , Painless Security
Chris Griffiths , Comcast
George Michaelson , APNIC
Jiankang Yao , CNNIC
Sohel Khan , Comcast
Dacheng Zhang , Huawei
Lianshu Zheng , Huawei Technologies
Hui Deng , China Mobile
Gang Chen , China Mobile
Mirja Kuhlewind , University of Stuttgart
John E Drake , Juniper Networks
Matt Lepinski , BBN Technologies
Subir Das , Telcordia Technologies Inc
Yi Zhao , Huawei
John Scudder , Juniper Networks
Christer Holmberg , LM Ericsson
Teemu Savolainen , Nokia
Samita Chakrabarti , Ericsson
Jaap Akkerhuis , NLnet labs
Jason Weil , Time Warner Cable
Randy Bush , Internet Initiative Japan
Christian Schmidt , Nokia Siemens Networks
Sean Shen , CNNIC
Lou Berger , LabN Consulting

The primary activity for this nomcom will begin during IETF-81 in
Quebec City and should be completed by January 2012. The nomcom will
be collecting requirements from the community, as well as talking to
candidates and to community members about candidates. There will be
regularly scheduled conference calls to ensure progress. Thus, being a
nomcom member does require some time commitment.

Please volunteer by sending an email to me before
11:59 pm EDT July 10, 2011 as follows:

To: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
Subject: Nomcom 2011-12 Volunteer

Please include the following information in the body of the mail:

Full Name:  // As you enter in the IETF Registration Form,
             // First/Given name followed by Last/Family Name

Current Primary Affiliation: // typically what goes in the Company
                              // field in the IETF Registration Form

Email Address(es): // all email addresses used to Register for the
                    // past 5 IETF meetings
		   // Please designate a Preferred email address for
                    // contact if there is more than one email address

Telephone number:  // With country code (for confirmation if selected)

Please expect an email response from me within 3 business days stating
whether or not you are qualified.  If you do not receive a response in
this timeframe, please re-send your email with the tag "RESEND:" added
to the subject line.

If you are not yet sure you would like to volunteer, please consider
that Nomcom members play a very important role in shaping the
leadership of the IETF.  Ensuring the leadership of the IETF is fair
and balanced and comprised of those who can lead the IETF in the right
direction is an important responsibility that rests on the IETF
participants at large. Volunteering for the Nomcom is a good way of
contributing in that direction.

I will be publishing a more detailed target timetable, as well as
details of the randomness seeds to be used for the RFC 3797 selection
process within the next few days.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

Suresh Krishnan
Nomcom Chair 2011-2012
Email: nomcom-chair@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

From Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu  Mon Jun 27 05:47:24 2011
Return-Path: <Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F7A21F8549 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 05:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WPBDTTHOykm6 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 05:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de (smtp0.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2CA21F8568 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 05:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA242800022C; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:19:49 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office.hd)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A1nAcELEOuov; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:19:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (ENCELADUS.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC412800022A; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:19:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.1.6.32] (10.1.6.32) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:19:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4E087552.5020108@neclab.eu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:19:30 +0200
From: Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch@neclab.eu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
References: <4DF0C15D.6010009@neclab.eu> <1307633949.3367.30.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4DF0EB0F.3060600@neclab.eu> <1308645578.3312.33.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4E00ACDD.9020103@neclab.eu> <4A904CC63A3F4423BFC92522B0FBB7A5@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A904CC63A3F4423BFC92522B0FBB7A5@china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.1.6.32]
Cc: dime@ietf.org, cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter extension for PMIPv6 localized routing
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:48:13 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:48:13 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:48:13 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:48:13 -0000

Hi Qin,

please find a few minor comments inline.

Am 23.06.2011 09:48, schrieb Qin Wu:
> Hi, Carlos
> Thank for your valuable comments, please see my reply belows.
>
> Regards!
> -Qin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marco Liebsch"<marco.liebsch@neclab.eu>
> To:<dime@ietf.org>
> Cc:<cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter extension for PMIPv6 localized routing
>
>
> Please find below a review from Carlos about draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.
> I forwarded this eMail to the DIME list. If you reply, please maintain
> Carlos' eMail address in the recipients list.
>
> marco
>
>
> Am 21.06.2011 10:39, schrieb Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano:
>> Hi Marco,
>>
>> Here are my comments (apologies for the delay):
>>
>> I think the document is well written and I didn't find any major issue
>> with the solution itself (although I'm not a security expert). I have
>> some minor comments/questions:
>>
>> - I think Figure 1 would benefit from some redesign, as to me it's a bit
>> misleading. It is not clear what the arrows mean and the IP addresses
>> 'a' and 'b' are also unclear (is 'a' the address of LMA2 and 'b' the
>> address of LMA1? if so, it seems awkward).
> [Qin]: Okay, that makes sense.
>
>> - Page 5: "but share the same LMA the interaction between LMA1
>> interaction and the AAA server should" -->   "but share the same LMA, the
>> interaction between LMA1 and the AAA server should"
> [Qin]: Good catch, Thanks.
>
>> - Page 6: "The Diameter server checks if localized routing is allowed
>> between MAG1 and MAG2" -->   does the server checks that or that LR is
>> allowed between MN1 and MN2? because the signaling does not explicitly
>> includes MAGs' addresses, but MNs' ones.
> [Qin]: Agree. This should be per MN basis. Since MAG2's address can not be known to the server
> before MN2's LMA2 is resolved through AAA mechanism.
Good point and text may be more precise about this. The Diameter server 
authorizes
LR for each MN, as the result depends on the MN's profile and the 
operator's policy.
Capability of MAGs to support LR (local flag EnableMAGLocalRouting) and
enforcement of LR according to RFC5213 is solely up to PMIPv6.


>> Besides, from a conceptual
>> viewpoint, do we need authorization for LR for a given pair of MNs or
>> for a given pair of MAGs?
> [Qin]: Yes, we need authorization for LR for a given pair of MNs.
> becos if LR is not allowed between MNs, it does not make sense for the server
> to resolve LMA2 based on MN2 and return LMA2 address which will be used to
> address A22.
Authorization does not include a decision if it's useful to set up a 
localized
path. Its result is positive simply when MN1 is allowed to use localized 
routing
and the same applies to MNs. For this decision, IMHO, the result does not
depend on the tuple MN1 and MN2, but on each MN's authorization result.
Maybe a minor detail..

> Another reason is Localized routing is per MN based capability, only when both
> MN1 and MN2 support localized routing capability, then LR path between MAG1
> and MAG2 can be allowed to setup.
no support or particular capability on MN1 and MN2 is needed for 
localized routing.
Only authorization to set up localized routing for MN1 and for MN2 is 
needed.


>   This capability should also get aligned with
> LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED capability defined in RFC5779.
I think this flag is solely a static flag on each MAG, which is 
administratively set per
MAG and not per MN. Authorization of LR for an MN depends on its profile 
and the
operator's decision to establish LR for a particular MN. This is in line 
with RFC6279.

>> - In Figures 2 and 3, the LR signaling on the LMA2/MAG2 side is not
>> shown (but only on LMA1/MAG1). I think it'd help to show the whole
>> picture.
> [Qin]: We simplify the figure 2 and 3 by cutting off LR signaling since
> we got the comments on the list in the past that this document should
> focus how Diameter AAA is used for LR rather than LR signaling.
>
> On the other hand, the detailed signaling on the LMA2/MAG2 is
> described in Figure 5, which is not necessary to be repeated in
> each figure. Combine these figure, you can  see the whole picture.
>   Hope it clarifies.
Not sure why Fig 5 shows details at all whereas the others do not. Anyway,
if the draft includes such details, it should be noted that this is 
exemplary for
explanation and, even more important, the meaning of a message must be
described. The message LRI is not expanded in the text and should be
added with a note that this belongs to the initial pahse of LR setup.


>> - Page 7: "the data packet from MN1 to MN2 and requesting" -->   I think
>> is the other way around (to be also consistant with Figure 3): "the data
>> packet from MN2 to MN1 and requesting"
> [Qin]: Corret.
Also here it may make sense to point to the exemplary nature of the sequence
chart, as it depends on where localized routing is detected and initiated.
So far it has been considered that the source MN's PMIP components
(MAG or LMA) detect and initiate LR. But for explanation in the DIME
spec it should not matter too much. Otherwise and for ease of reading I'd
propose making this consistent throughout all message sequence charts
and take traffic from MN1 to MN2 as trigger, assuming MN1 is the initiator
of the communication.

marco

>> - Page 8: "is LMA2. MAG1 or LMA may solicit" -->   "is LMA2. MAG1 or LMA1
>> may solicit"
> [Qin]: Correct, Thanks.
>
>> - In Figure 5, both cases of MAG1 or LMA1 soliciting the LR (i.e.,
>> sending the LRI and receiving the LRA message) are shown, but it might
>> lead to confusion if the reader just looks at the picture. Maybe
>> something can be added to the Figure to mention that it is one case or
>> the other. There is also missing the arrow head for the LRA(MAG2)
>> message.
> [Qin]: Good suggestion, will fix this in the new version.

>> - I think it might be necessary to make more explicit that this document
>> addresses Scenario A22 of draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps (which is not
>> cover in draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr). What about Scenario A21? this seems
>> to be covered by both this document and draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr,
>> right?
> [Qin]: Sure, that make sense. Actually the document should cover
> both A22 and A21.
> As described in the section 2 of this document, it said:
> "
>      This reference architecture assumes
>
>     o  MN1 and MN2 belong to different LMAs or the same LMA.
>
> "
> however we lack one more use case to explain how LR authorization works in A21.
> we will fix this in the new version, thank for your suggestion.
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Carlos
>>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime


From Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu  Mon Jun 27 06:49:55 2011
Return-Path: <Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9926321F8614 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 06:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V+0K8iM5W-JU for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 06:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de (smtp0.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D86721F86F7 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 06:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D352800022C; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:38:06 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office.hd)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FBvPBL1uKDdl; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:38:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (ENCELADUS.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF59F2800022A; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:37:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.1.6.32] (10.1.6.32) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:37:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4E0879A3.2020707@neclab.eu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:37:55 +0200
From: Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch@neclab.eu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.1.6.32]
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] Diameter support for PMIP6 Localized Routing
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:49:55 -0000

Hi Qin,

one additional point where we may consider a minor revision is the Abstract,
which should be easy to read and understand.

The point 1 in the Abstract says 'the usage of localized routing must be 
authorized
for both MAGs'...

Text before refers to the MN's MAG ('..packets are routed directly by 
the MAG...')
without reference to a CN, and context of the two MAGs may not be clear.

Proposed revision to introduce the meaning of PMIP6 localized routing in 
the Abstract's
text above the enumerated features:

OLD TEXT:
The term "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed
directly by the MAG without involving the LMA.


PROPOSED NEW TEXT:
The term "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed
directly between an MN's MAG and the MAG of its Correspondent Node (CN)
without involving any LMA.

What do you think?

marco






From Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu  Mon Jun 27 07:06:01 2011
Return-Path: <Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C24A11E807A for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vdX5nVh8QhCk for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de (smtp0.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D86721F86F7 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 06:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D352800022C; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:38:06 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office.hd)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FBvPBL1uKDdl; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:38:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (ENCELADUS.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF59F2800022A; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:37:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.1.6.32] (10.1.6.32) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:37:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4E0879A3.2020707@neclab.eu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:37:55 +0200
From: Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch@neclab.eu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.1.6.32]
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] Diameter support for PMIP6 Localized Routing
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:06:01 -0000

Hi Qin,

one additional point where we may consider a minor revision is the Abstract,
which should be easy to read and understand.

The point 1 in the Abstract says 'the usage of localized routing must be 
authorized
for both MAGs'...

Text before refers to the MN's MAG ('..packets are routed directly by 
the MAG...')
without reference to a CN, and context of the two MAGs may not be clear.

Proposed revision to introduce the meaning of PMIP6 localized routing in 
the Abstract's
text above the enumerated features:

OLD TEXT:
The term "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed
directly by the MAG without involving the LMA.


PROPOSED NEW TEXT:
The term "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed
directly between an MN's MAG and the MAG of its Correspondent Node (CN)
without involving any LMA.

What do you think?

marco






From cjbc@it.uc3m.es  Mon Jun 27 16:23:24 2011
Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D9811E808D for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.699
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Rmed4Tz2mQy for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4A09E8008 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (82.159.31.107.dyn.user.ono.com [82.159.31.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E47EC28637; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 01:23:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch@neclab.eu>
In-Reply-To: <4E087552.5020108@neclab.eu>
References: <4DF0C15D.6010009@neclab.eu> <1307633949.3367.30.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4DF0EB0F.3060600@neclab.eu> <1308645578.3312.33.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4E00ACDD.9020103@neclab.eu> <4A904CC63A3F4423BFC92522B0FBB7A5@china.huawei.com> <4E087552.5020108@neclab.eu>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-E2DnicaeCz/+ipcrh8Ej"
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 01:23:21 +0200
Message-ID: <1309217001.2900.22.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18226.002
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:24:36 -0700
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter extension for PMIPv6 localized routing
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:23:24 -0000

--=-E2DnicaeCz/+ipcrh8Ej
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Qin, Marco,

Thanks for your comments and responses. I agree with your points, Marco.

Kind Regards,

Carlos

On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 14:19 +0200, Marco Liebsch wrote:
> Hi Qin,
>=20
> please find a few minor comments inline.
>=20
> Am 23.06.2011 09:48, schrieb Qin Wu:
> > Hi, Carlos
> > Thank for your valuable comments, please see my reply belows.
> >
> > Regards!
> > -Qin
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Marco Liebsch"<marco.liebsch@neclab.eu>
> > To:<dime@ietf.org>
> > Cc:<cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter extension for PMIPv6 localized routing
> >
> >
> > Please find below a review from Carlos about draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-0=
4.
> > I forwarded this eMail to the DIME list. If you reply, please maintain
> > Carlos' eMail address in the recipients list.
> >
> > marco
> >
> >
> > Am 21.06.2011 10:39, schrieb Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano:
> >> Hi Marco,
> >>
> >> Here are my comments (apologies for the delay):
> >>
> >> I think the document is well written and I didn't find any major issue
> >> with the solution itself (although I'm not a security expert). I have
> >> some minor comments/questions:
> >>
> >> - I think Figure 1 would benefit from some redesign, as to me it's a b=
it
> >> misleading. It is not clear what the arrows mean and the IP addresses
> >> 'a' and 'b' are also unclear (is 'a' the address of LMA2 and 'b' the
> >> address of LMA1? if so, it seems awkward).
> > [Qin]: Okay, that makes sense.
> >
> >> - Page 5: "but share the same LMA the interaction between LMA1
> >> interaction and the AAA server should" -->   "but share the same LMA, =
the
> >> interaction between LMA1 and the AAA server should"
> > [Qin]: Good catch, Thanks.
> >
> >> - Page 6: "The Diameter server checks if localized routing is allowed
> >> between MAG1 and MAG2" -->   does the server checks that or that LR is
> >> allowed between MN1 and MN2? because the signaling does not explicitly
> >> includes MAGs' addresses, but MNs' ones.
> > [Qin]: Agree. This should be per MN basis. Since MAG2's address can not=
 be known to the server
> > before MN2's LMA2 is resolved through AAA mechanism.
> Good point and text may be more precise about this. The Diameter server=
=20
> authorizes
> LR for each MN, as the result depends on the MN's profile and the=20
> operator's policy.
> Capability of MAGs to support LR (local flag EnableMAGLocalRouting) and
> enforcement of LR according to RFC5213 is solely up to PMIPv6.
>=20
>=20
> >> Besides, from a conceptual
> >> viewpoint, do we need authorization for LR for a given pair of MNs or
> >> for a given pair of MAGs?
> > [Qin]: Yes, we need authorization for LR for a given pair of MNs.
> > becos if LR is not allowed between MNs, it does not make sense for the =
server
> > to resolve LMA2 based on MN2 and return LMA2 address which will be used=
 to
> > address A22.
> Authorization does not include a decision if it's useful to set up a=20
> localized
> path. Its result is positive simply when MN1 is allowed to use localized=
=20
> routing
> and the same applies to MNs. For this decision, IMHO, the result does not
> depend on the tuple MN1 and MN2, but on each MN's authorization result.
> Maybe a minor detail..
>=20
> > Another reason is Localized routing is per MN based capability, only wh=
en both
> > MN1 and MN2 support localized routing capability, then LR path between =
MAG1
> > and MAG2 can be allowed to setup.
> no support or particular capability on MN1 and MN2 is needed for=20
> localized routing.
> Only authorization to set up localized routing for MN1 and for MN2 is=20
> needed.
>=20
>=20
> >   This capability should also get aligned with
> > LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED capability defined in RFC5779.
> I think this flag is solely a static flag on each MAG, which is=20
> administratively set per
> MAG and not per MN. Authorization of LR for an MN depends on its profile=
=20
> and the
> operator's decision to establish LR for a particular MN. This is in line=
=20
> with RFC6279.
>=20
> >> - In Figures 2 and 3, the LR signaling on the LMA2/MAG2 side is not
> >> shown (but only on LMA1/MAG1). I think it'd help to show the whole
> >> picture.
> > [Qin]: We simplify the figure 2 and 3 by cutting off LR signaling since
> > we got the comments on the list in the past that this document should
> > focus how Diameter AAA is used for LR rather than LR signaling.
> >
> > On the other hand, the detailed signaling on the LMA2/MAG2 is
> > described in Figure 5, which is not necessary to be repeated in
> > each figure. Combine these figure, you can  see the whole picture.
> >   Hope it clarifies.
> Not sure why Fig 5 shows details at all whereas the others do not. Anyway=
,
> if the draft includes such details, it should be noted that this is=20
> exemplary for
> explanation and, even more important, the meaning of a message must be
> described. The message LRI is not expanded in the text and should be
> added with a note that this belongs to the initial pahse of LR setup.
>=20
>=20
> >> - Page 7: "the data packet from MN1 to MN2 and requesting" -->   I thi=
nk
> >> is the other way around (to be also consistant with Figure 3): "the da=
ta
> >> packet from MN2 to MN1 and requesting"
> > [Qin]: Corret.
> Also here it may make sense to point to the exemplary nature of the seque=
nce
> chart, as it depends on where localized routing is detected and initiated=
.
> So far it has been considered that the source MN's PMIP components
> (MAG or LMA) detect and initiate LR. But for explanation in the DIME
> spec it should not matter too much. Otherwise and for ease of reading I'd
> propose making this consistent throughout all message sequence charts
> and take traffic from MN1 to MN2 as trigger, assuming MN1 is the initiato=
r
> of the communication.
>=20
> marco
>=20
> >> - Page 8: "is LMA2. MAG1 or LMA may solicit" -->   "is LMA2. MAG1 or L=
MA1
> >> may solicit"
> > [Qin]: Correct, Thanks.
> >
> >> - In Figure 5, both cases of MAG1 or LMA1 soliciting the LR (i.e.,
> >> sending the LRI and receiving the LRA message) are shown, but it might
> >> lead to confusion if the reader just looks at the picture. Maybe
> >> something can be added to the Figure to mention that it is one case or
> >> the other. There is also missing the arrow head for the LRA(MAG2)
> >> message.
> > [Qin]: Good suggestion, will fix this in the new version.
>=20
> >> - I think it might be necessary to make more explicit that this docume=
nt
> >> addresses Scenario A22 of draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps (which is not
> >> cover in draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr). What about Scenario A21? this see=
ms
> >> to be covered by both this document and draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr,
> >> right?
> > [Qin]: Sure, that make sense. Actually the document should cover
> > both A22 and A21.
> > As described in the section 2 of this document, it said:
> > "
> >      This reference architecture assumes
> >
> >     o  MN1 and MN2 belong to different LMAs or the same LMA.
> >
> > "
> > however we lack one more use case to explain how LR authorization works=
 in A21.
> > we will fix this in the new version, thank for your suggestion.
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Carlos
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > DiME mailing list
> > DiME@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>=20

--=20
Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano  http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67

--=-E2DnicaeCz/+ipcrh8Ej
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAk4JEOkACgkQNdy6TdFwT2dqAgCfdMoV5+tuirE1AI+IiP0as8Wt
4woAoMZxJ9tZvn8jSUHLATrj5yhDCEDI
=WNod
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-E2DnicaeCz/+ipcrh8Ej--


From sunseawq@huawei.com  Mon Jun 27 19:07:08 2011
Return-Path: <sunseawq@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448C79E8012 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.805
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.805 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS=0.041, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ah6aykkch8P5 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9199E8017 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LNH00AW29VRNO@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:07:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LNH00CGJ9VR3K@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:07:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from w53375q ([10.138.41.76]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LNH004BP9VL71@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:07:03 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:06:57 +0800
From: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
To: Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch@neclab.eu>
Message-id: <2DC4BAC7732241308770A808EB05517B@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <4DF0C15D.6010009@neclab.eu> <1307633949.3367.30.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4DF0EB0F.3060600@neclab.eu> <1308645578.3312.33.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <4E00ACDD.9020103@neclab.eu> <4A904CC63A3F4423BFC92522B0FBB7A5@china.huawei.com> <4E087552.5020108@neclab.eu>
Cc: dime@ietf.org, cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter extension for PMIPv6 localized routing
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 02:07:08 -0000
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From sunseawq@huawei.com  Mon Jun 27 19:12:08 2011
Return-Path: <sunseawq@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D91821F84CA for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.702
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.897,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0FkGTnJN0foi for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A89821F84C7 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LNH005LCA4690@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:12:06 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LNH00GFFA46RD@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:12:06 +0800 (CST)
Received: from w53375q ([10.138.41.76]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LNH00ED2A45LB@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:12:06 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:12:05 +0800
From: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
To: Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch@neclab.eu>
Message-id: <915730648DB04E2298F88EFDED766479@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <4E0879A3.2020707@neclab.eu>
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter support for PMIP6 Localized Routing
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 02:12:08 -0000

Yes, make sense.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marco Liebsch" <marco.liebsch@neclab.eu>
To: "Qin Wu" <sunseawq@huawei.com>
Cc: <dime@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 8:37 PM
Subject: Diameter support for PMIP6 Localized Routing


> Hi Qin,
> 
> one additional point where we may consider a minor revision is the Abstract,
> which should be easy to read and understand.
> 
> The point 1 in the Abstract says 'the usage of localized routing must be 
> authorized
> for both MAGs'...
> 
> Text before refers to the MN's MAG ('..packets are routed directly by 
> the MAG...')
> without reference to a CN, and context of the two MAGs may not be clear.
> 
> Proposed revision to introduce the meaning of PMIP6 localized routing in 
> the Abstract's
> text above the enumerated features:
> 
> OLD TEXT:
> The term "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed
> directly by the MAG without involving the LMA.
> 
> 
> PROPOSED NEW TEXT:
> The term "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed
> directly between an MN's MAG and the MAG of its Correspondent Node (CN)
> without involving any LMA.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> marco
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

From carlberg@g11.org.uk  Tue Jun 28 12:50:55 2011
Return-Path: <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3CDE11E819D for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4CrO1VX023jl for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from portland.eukhosting.net (portland.eukhosting.net [92.48.97.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7969011E8126 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=g11.org.uk; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=xa7ChNs7KWQdZUeAL+Rx/eV1+uuIXzxgXTvFVFBvh5JJ721mGrgYHHtOLbpCA7R9ro7Yti1XHGqT/ra91wIxsNFvcc8vF7h+PVEEAxYQJyI4SXNfUodfOwzCqZIKC3km;
Received: from c-76-111-69-4.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([76.111.69.4]:64929 helo=[192.168.0.20]) by portland.eukhosting.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <carlberg@g11.org.uk>) id 1QbeJ2-0002FC-Hj; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:50:44 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0403328F01@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:50:44 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7807DA41-18F0-4388-9C29-F6E3B60F8DA2@g11.org.uk>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0403328F01@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - portland.eukhosting.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - g11.org.uk
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:50:55 -0000

Hi Dan,

I'm terribly sorry for the tardy response!

> Hi,=20
>=20
> Please find below the AD review of =
draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt.
> I would suggest that the issues raised in this review be clarified and
> the necessary edits performed in a revised I-D before progressing this
> document to IETF Last Call.=20
>=20
> Technical comments are marked by T, and Editorial comments are marked =
by
> an E.=20
>=20
> T1. I think that it's better to start using references to RFC 3588bis
> rather than 3588 - as soon (hopefully) 3588 will be obsoleted.=20

ok, will do.

> T2. In RFC 3181 the Preemption Priority and Defending Priority fields
> are 16-bit unsigned while here the Preemption-Priority and
> Defending-Priority AVPs are Unsigned32. Also admission priority
> parameter defined in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] is =
8
> bit while the Admission-Priority AVP is of type Unsigned32. Should not
> these limits be mentioned in the definitions in sections 3.1 and 3.2?=20=


The original intention was to provide some additional room for expansion =
for the defined AVP.  And you're correct, that given that line of =
thought, we should mention these limitations.  However, I think a =
cleaner approach will be just to properly align the fields.  So I'll =
change the AVP to that of a 16-bit unsigned for the preemption-priority =
AVP and the defending-priority AVP. =20
And I'll also change the Admission-Priority AVP to an 8-bit unsigned.=20

> T3. Section 3.3.1:=20
>=20
>   The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
>   UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique =
ordered
>   set of priority values as described in [rfc4412].
>=20
> Should not this AVP refer here to the priority namespace, rather than
> priority values?=20

It actually does refer to the priority namespace by referring to it as a =
"string" identifying a  "unique ordered set".  Perhaps I can add some =
clarity by stating the following:

     The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD)=20
     is of type UTF8String.  This AVP contains a string=20
     (i.e., a Namespace entry) that identifies a set of=20
     priority values unique to the Namespace.  Examples
     of Namespaces and corresponding sets of priorities
     are found in [rfc4412].

> T4. Section 3.3 - RFC 4412 allows for new namespaces and associated
> ordered value sets to be defined in the future extending the =
registries
> defined in sections 12.1 and 12.2. The text in the I-D should reflect
> this extensibility.=20

you raise a good point.  But I would add that all the protocol fields =
associated with the AVPs defined in the document allow for additional =
values beyond what may have already been defined or registered.  So I =
think i should just make this generic statement earlier in the draft and =
not confine the extensibility to just those that pertaining to rfc-4412

> T5. In draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-15.txt ALRP Namespace is =
codified
> in 16bits and ALRP Value is codified in 8 bits, while ALRP-Namespace =
AVP
> and ALRP-Value AVP are of type Unsigned32. Should not these limits be
> mentioned in the definitions in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2?

same as above.  I'll change the AVPs to 16 bits and 8 bits respectively, =
instead of the type unsigned32.

> T6. I think that the Security Considerations section should also refer
> to the security considerations in RFC 3181, RFC 4412, and
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp which refer to the fields defined in
> those documents that can be carried in the AVPs defined here.=20

Here we have a bit of a disagreement.  The security sections in rfc-3181 =
and rfc-4412 pertain to the particular protocol of RSVP and SIP, =
respectively.  It seems a bit of a stretch to then fold a reference to =
them into the security section of this document since they don't have a =
direct applicability to the Diameter protocol. =20

> E1. The document has no exact date - just the month is mentioned.
>=20
> E2. Running idnits results in a number of warnings due to exceeding =
the
> maximum (72) allowed length of a row.=20

understood.  And thanks again for the review.

-ken


From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Tue Jun 28 19:50:48 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B1811E8097; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.552
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0RVmvMUlwZ8v; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132EF11E8085; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55
Message-ID: <20110629025048.24929.59619.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:50:48 -0700
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-05.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:50:48 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W=
orking Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing
	Author(s)       : Glen Zorn
                          Qin Wu
                          Marco Liebsch
                          Jouni Korhonen
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-05.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2011-06-28

   In Proxy Mobile IPv6, packets received from a Mobile Node (MN) by the
   Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to which it is attached are typically
   tunneled to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) for routing.  The term
   &quot;localized routing&quot; refers to a method by which packets are ro=
uted
   directly between an MN&#39;s MAG and the MAG of its Correspondent Node
   (CN) without involving any LMA.  In order to establish a localized
   routing session between two Mobile Access Gateways in a Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 domain, two tasks must be accomplished:


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-05.txt

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

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-05.txt

From dromasca@avaya.com  Wed Jun 29 01:16:38 2011
Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D1E21F8619 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.245
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.354, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A5wjJtKRjCpb for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D54021F8604 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4AAB/fCk7GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABSmBqPOneuNgKbNoYwBJcpixo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,442,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="253923229"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2011 04:16:31 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2011 04:15:41 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:16:27 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040351208D@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <7807DA41-18F0-4388-9C29-F6E3B60F8DA2@g11.org.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
Thread-Index: Acw102dx36HVLtI7Qy6XNtVucOkSlwAYRHtg
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0403328F01@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <7807DA41-18F0-4388-9C29-F6E3B60F8DA2@g11.org.uk>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "ken carlberg" <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:16:38 -0000

Hi Ken,=20

Thank you for the answer. It looks like we agree on all items with the
exception of T6. I still hold the opinion that as values carried in the
DIME fileds are being defined in other RFCs, the references to the
security considerations sections of these RFCs are appropriate, but I
will not block the document on this. Please go ahead and issue a revised
ID with the changes, so that we can send the document to IETF LC.=20

Regards,

Dan=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ken carlberg [mailto:carlberg@g11.org.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:51 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
>=20
> Hi Dan,
>=20
> I'm terribly sorry for the tardy response!
>=20
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please find below the AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-
> 03.txt.
> > I would suggest that the issues raised in this review be clarified
> and
> > the necessary edits performed in a revised I-D before progressing
> this
> > document to IETF Last Call.
> >
> > Technical comments are marked by T, and Editorial comments are
marked
> by
> > an E.
> >
> > T1. I think that it's better to start using references to RFC
3588bis
> > rather than 3588 - as soon (hopefully) 3588 will be obsoleted.
>=20
> ok, will do.
>=20
> > T2. In RFC 3181 the Preemption Priority and Defending Priority
fields
> > are 16-bit unsigned while here the Preemption-Priority and
> > Defending-Priority AVPs are Unsigned32. Also admission priority
> > parameter defined in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]
> is 8
> > bit while the Admission-Priority AVP is of type Unsigned32. Should
> not
> > these limits be mentioned in the definitions in sections 3.1 and
3.2?
>=20
> The original intention was to provide some additional room for
> expansion for the defined AVP.  And you're correct, that given that
> line of thought, we should mention these limitations.  However, I
think
> a cleaner approach will be just to properly align the fields.  So I'll
> change the AVP to that of a 16-bit unsigned for the
preemption-priority
> AVP and the defending-priority AVP.
> And I'll also change the Admission-Priority AVP to an 8-bit unsigned.
>=20
> > T3. Section 3.3.1:
> >
> >   The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
> >   UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique
> ordered
> >   set of priority values as described in [rfc4412].
> >
> > Should not this AVP refer here to the priority namespace, rather
than
> > priority values?
>=20
> It actually does refer to the priority namespace by referring to it as
> a "string" identifying a  "unique ordered set".  Perhaps I can add
some
> clarity by stating the following:
>=20
>      The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD)
>      is of type UTF8String.  This AVP contains a string
>      (i.e., a Namespace entry) that identifies a set of
>      priority values unique to the Namespace.  Examples
>      of Namespaces and corresponding sets of priorities
>      are found in [rfc4412].
>=20
> > T4. Section 3.3 - RFC 4412 allows for new namespaces and associated
> > ordered value sets to be defined in the future extending the
> registries
> > defined in sections 12.1 and 12.2. The text in the I-D should
reflect
> > this extensibility.
>=20
> you raise a good point.  But I would add that all the protocol fields
> associated with the AVPs defined in the document allow for additional
> values beyond what may have already been defined or registered.  So I
> think i should just make this generic statement earlier in the draft
> and not confine the extensibility to just those that pertaining to
rfc-
> 4412
>=20
> > T5. In draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-15.txt ALRP Namespace is
> codified
> > in 16bits and ALRP Value is codified in 8 bits, while ALRP-Namespace
> AVP
> > and ALRP-Value AVP are of type Unsigned32. Should not these limits
be
> > mentioned in the definitions in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2?
>=20
> same as above.  I'll change the AVPs to 16 bits and 8 bits
> respectively, instead of the type unsigned32.
>=20
> > T6. I think that the Security Considerations section should also
> refer
> > to the security considerations in RFC 3181, RFC 4412, and
> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp which refer to the fields defined in
> > those documents that can be carried in the AVPs defined here.
>=20
> Here we have a bit of a disagreement.  The security sections in rfc-
> 3181 and rfc-4412 pertain to the particular protocol of RSVP and SIP,
> respectively.  It seems a bit of a stretch to then fold a reference to
> them into the security section of this document since they don't have
a
> direct applicability to the Diameter protocol.
>=20
> > E1. The document has no exact date - just the month is mentioned.
> >
> > E2. Running idnits results in a number of warnings due to exceeding
> the
> > maximum (72) allowed length of a row.
>=20
> understood.  And thanks again for the review.
>=20
> -ken


From lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com  Wed Jun 29 01:42:41 2011
Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784279E801F for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OGkYSJmjmvIw for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F2C228016 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 478BCFC4004; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:42:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A75CFC4001; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:42:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:42:38 +0200
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:42:36 +0200
Message-ID: <B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F577A97CB9@ftrdmel1>
In-reply-to: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040351208D@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-topic: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
Thread-index: Acw102dx36HVLtI7Qy6XNtVucOkSlwAYRHtgAAAlpWA=
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0403328F01@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com><7807DA41-18F0-4388-9C29-F6E3B60F8DA2@g11.org.uk> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040351208D@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
From: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: <dromasca@avaya.com>, <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2011 08:42:38.0098 (UTC) FILETIME=[80080720:01CC3638]
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:42:41 -0000

Hi Dan, Ken,

I tend to agree with Ken. From the Diameter protocol point of view, =
there is no additional issue. For the use of the priority parameters, =
there are already references to the related specifications. From E2E =
point of view, I think that the security aspects are covered with all =
the specifications.
Anyway, from the reader point of view, it may not harm to find a =
reference to the corresponding documents in our security consideration =
section, at least for information.

Lionel

-----Message d'origine-----
De=A0: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part =
de Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Envoy=E9=A0: mercredi 29 juin 2011 10:16
=C0=A0: ken carlberg
Cc=A0: dime@ietf.org
Objet=A0: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt



Hi Ken,=20

Thank you for the answer. It looks like we agree on all items with the
exception of T6. I still hold the opinion that as values carried in the
DIME fileds are being defined in other RFCs, the references to the
security considerations sections of these RFCs are appropriate, but I
will not block the document on this. Please go ahead and issue a revised
ID with the changes, so that we can send the document to IETF LC.=20

Regards,

Dan=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ken carlberg [mailto:carlberg@g11.org.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:51 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
>=20
> Hi Dan,
>=20
> I'm terribly sorry for the tardy response!
>=20
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please find below the AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-
> 03.txt.
> > I would suggest that the issues raised in this review be clarified
> and
> > the necessary edits performed in a revised I-D before progressing
> this
> > document to IETF Last Call.
> >
> > Technical comments are marked by T, and Editorial comments are
marked
> by
> > an E.
> >
> > T1. I think that it's better to start using references to RFC
3588bis
> > rather than 3588 - as soon (hopefully) 3588 will be obsoleted.
>=20
> ok, will do.
>=20
> > T2. In RFC 3181 the Preemption Priority and Defending Priority
fields
> > are 16-bit unsigned while here the Preemption-Priority and
> > Defending-Priority AVPs are Unsigned32. Also admission priority
> > parameter defined in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]
> is 8
> > bit while the Admission-Priority AVP is of type Unsigned32. Should
> not
> > these limits be mentioned in the definitions in sections 3.1 and
3.2?
>=20
> The original intention was to provide some additional room for
> expansion for the defined AVP.  And you're correct, that given that
> line of thought, we should mention these limitations.  However, I
think
> a cleaner approach will be just to properly align the fields.  So I'll
> change the AVP to that of a 16-bit unsigned for the
preemption-priority
> AVP and the defending-priority AVP.
> And I'll also change the Admission-Priority AVP to an 8-bit unsigned.
>=20
> > T3. Section 3.3.1:
> >
> >   The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
> >   UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique
> ordered
> >   set of priority values as described in [rfc4412].
> >
> > Should not this AVP refer here to the priority namespace, rather
than
> > priority values?
>=20
> It actually does refer to the priority namespace by referring to it as
> a "string" identifying a  "unique ordered set".  Perhaps I can add
some
> clarity by stating the following:
>=20
>      The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD)
>      is of type UTF8String.  This AVP contains a string
>      (i.e., a Namespace entry) that identifies a set of
>      priority values unique to the Namespace.  Examples
>      of Namespaces and corresponding sets of priorities
>      are found in [rfc4412].
>=20
> > T4. Section 3.3 - RFC 4412 allows for new namespaces and associated
> > ordered value sets to be defined in the future extending the
> registries
> > defined in sections 12.1 and 12.2. The text in the I-D should
reflect
> > this extensibility.
>=20
> you raise a good point.  But I would add that all the protocol fields
> associated with the AVPs defined in the document allow for additional
> values beyond what may have already been defined or registered.  So I
> think i should just make this generic statement earlier in the draft
> and not confine the extensibility to just those that pertaining to
rfc-
> 4412
>=20
> > T5. In draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-15.txt ALRP Namespace is
> codified
> > in 16bits and ALRP Value is codified in 8 bits, while ALRP-Namespace
> AVP
> > and ALRP-Value AVP are of type Unsigned32. Should not these limits
be
> > mentioned in the definitions in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2?
>=20
> same as above.  I'll change the AVPs to 16 bits and 8 bits
> respectively, instead of the type unsigned32.
>=20
> > T6. I think that the Security Considerations section should also
> refer
> > to the security considerations in RFC 3181, RFC 4412, and
> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp which refer to the fields defined in
> > those documents that can be carried in the AVPs defined here.
>=20
> Here we have a bit of a disagreement.  The security sections in rfc-
> 3181 and rfc-4412 pertain to the particular protocol of RSVP and SIP,
> respectively.  It seems a bit of a stretch to then fold a reference to
> them into the security section of this document since they don't have
a
> direct applicability to the Diameter protocol.
>=20
> > E1. The document has no exact date - just the month is mentioned.
> >
> > E2. Running idnits results in a number of warnings due to exceeding
> the
> > maximum (72) allowed length of a row.
>=20
> understood.  And thanks again for the review.
>=20
> -ken

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

From lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com  Wed Jun 29 01:54:43 2011
Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637A19E8024 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.248
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wbORmTJa+NjJ for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940899E802B for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 38DCF958001 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:02:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDEE6FCAFA for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:02:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:54:43 +0200
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC363A.2B0CAE9A"
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:54:40 +0200
Message-ID: <B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F577AD7A6D@ftrdmel1>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-topic: Second call for agenda items
Thread-index: Acw2Oi5gt53VwmT3QA6hoThjq+wVIg==
From: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: <dime@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2011 08:54:43.0310 (UTC) FILETIME=[304A98E0:01CC363A]
Subject: [Dime] Second call for agenda items
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:54:43 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CC363A.2B0CAE9A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Folks,

=20

We are still waiting for slot requests.

At least, there is a bunch of WG documents at the IESG level and
presentations of the ongoing discussions/conclusions are required.
Therefore, authors (or representatives) are to be prepared to present
something to the working group during this meeting.

Of course, any other presentation is welcome.

=20

Best Regards,

=20

Lionel & Jouni


------_=_NextPart_001_01CC363A.2B0CAE9A
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 =
(filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:SimSun;
	panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
	{font-family:SimSun;
	panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:"\@SimSun";
	panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DFR link=3Dblue =
vlink=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
lang=3DEN-US>Folks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
lang=3DEN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
lang=3DEN-US>We are still waiting for slot =
requests.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
lang=3DEN-US>At least, there is a bunch of WG documents at the IESG =
level and presentations of the ongoing discussions/conclusions are =
required. Therefore, authors (or representatives) are to be prepared to =
present something to the working group during this =
meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>Of =
course, any other presentation is welcome.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>Best =
Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
lang=3DEN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
lang=3DEN-US>Lionel &amp; Jouni<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>
------_=_NextPart_001_01CC363A.2B0CAE9A--

From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Thu Jun 30 03:05:16 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8D121F87F5; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.582
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SkOtjSCB7Awm; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2EAF21F87AF; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55
Message-ID: <20110630100515.19258.42900.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:05:15 -0700
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-08.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:05:16 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W=
orking Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Diameter Network Address and Port Translation Control Ap=
plication
	Author(s)       : Frank Brockners
                          Shwetha Bhandari
                          Vaneeta Singh
                          Victor Fajardo
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-08.txt
	Pages           : 44
	Date            : 2011-06-30

   This document describes the framework, messages, and procedures for
   the Diameter Network address and port translation Control
   Application.  This Diameter application allows per endpoint control
   of Network Address Translators and Network Address and Port
   Translators, which are added to networks to cope with IPv4-address
   space completion.  This Diameter application allows external devices
   to configure and manage a Network Address Translator device -
   expanding the existing Diameter-based AAA and policy control
   capabilities with a Network Address Translators and Network Address
   and Port Translators control component.  These external devices can
   be network elements in the data plane such as a Network Access
   Server, or can be more centralized control plane devices such as AAA-
   servers.  This Diameter application establishes a context to commonly
   identify and manage endpoints on a gateway or server, and a Network
   Address Translator and Network Address and Port Translator device.
   This includes, for example, the control of the total number of
   Network Address Translator bindings allowed or the allocation of a
   specific Network Address Translator binding for a particular
   endpoint.  In addition, it allows Network Address Translator devices
   to provide information relevant to accounting purposes.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-08.txt

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

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-08.txt

From fbrockne@cisco.com  Thu Jun 30 03:09:23 2011
Return-Path: <fbrockne@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDF521F86A6 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id so4bHFhreILJ for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE6121F859F for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fbrockne@cisco.com; l=5290; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1309428561; x=1310638161; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:from:to; bh=TKhxfO4C7jxVNjJZ/FvzhrFddiXkGlsybvnbrNFLZnE=; b=mBCO8V9RGVT7QOn3DeNh6ZqP6ZMVXX2QnGu9Z4qfPlr7wV626MUF/IV4 7qeoVguQSTeWsGWTt49BLTLqum2vOYhrMu57G+FS2Z+8v+XtQ4itwKAHH McAgUCRsWQ38BgQ/ZkqYJXBDf3JdpPu26NhtqKsOS4v3OAh3BsNr6Byd0 Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvkAAGxKDE6Q/khM/2dsb2JhbABFDZgkjy93qXKeFYMggxEEly6LMQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,449,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="39991068"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2011 10:09:20 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p5UA9KZC014991; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:09:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-106.cisco.com ([144.254.74.81]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:09:20 +0200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:09:18 +0200
Message-ID: <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC061BB655@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [Dime] FW: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-07
Thread-Index: AcveXoAI4/NYzV6BSlyRghF9Op12ZQAG6YMwAABq4TAWJF9PgA==
From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>
To: <dime@ietf.org>, <mlepinsk@bbn.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2011 10:09:20.0472 (UTC) FILETIME=[C74D0D80:01CC370D]
Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-07
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:09:23 -0000

FYI. I've just posted a revision (draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-08), which
now includes an extended security section - closely following Matt's
comments (Matt, thanks again for the very detailed comments).

Regards, Frank

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> > Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 5:51 PM
> > To: dime@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Dime] FW: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-07
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Lepinski [mailto:mlepinsk@bbn.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 3:33 PM
> > To: draft-ietf-dime-nat-control.all@tools.ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org;
> > secdir@ietf.org
> > Subject: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-07
> >
> > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> > IESG.
> > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security
> > area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
> > comments just like any other last call comments.
> >
> > This document defines a Diameter application whereby a Diameter NAT
> > Control Application (DNCA) server (either a AAA server or a Network
> > Access Server) can control a DNCA client (either a NAT or NAPT
> device).
> > For example, the DNCA server can determine the number of port
> bindings
> > available to a given host, cause the allocation of particular NAT
> > bindings, define the external address pool used for by the NAT
> device,
> > or generate reports used for accounting purposes.
> >
> > The principle security concern is that an unauthorized (or
> > unauthenticated) DNCA server could effect a denial of service of
> attack
> > on any or all hosts using a NAT/NAPT device in several ways. (E.g.,
> an
> > unauthorized server could exhaust resources in the NAPT device, set
> > maximum bindings to zero for all hosts, provide a set of external
> > addresses that are in use elsewhere in the network, etc.) An
> additional
> > concern is that an unauthenticated DNCA client could provide
> incorrect
> > reporting data to the DNCA server to prevent correct accounting
> within
> > the system. Therefore, the NAT control application requires mutual
> > authentication, authorization of the DNCA server, and integrity
> > protection of the Diameter messages in the DNCA interaction.
> > Additionally, the application may require confidentiality depending
> on
> > the deployment scenario and, particularly, how authorization is
> > accomplished.
> >
> > The Security Considerations section of the document claims that
> > security
> > considerations are essentially the same as in the Diameter QoS (RFC
> > 5866). I agree with the authors that the security concerns for
> Diameter
> > NAT Control are very similar to the security concerns for Diameter
> QoS,
> > but I think the additional layer of indirection is not helpful to
the
> > reader. (In particular, the NAT Control Application has no
> dependencies
> > on the Diameter QoS document. Therefore it is reasonable to believe
> > that
> > an implementer of Diameter NAT Control may not be familiar with the
> > Diameter QoS document.) I would recommend that the authors add
> > additional text explaining why mutual authentication, server
> > authorization, and message integrity are required (copying a bit of
> > text
> > from RFC 5866 may be appropriate). Then I would recommend that the
> > authors cite the Diameter specification (RFC 3588) for a discussion
> of
> > how IPsec or TLS can be used to obtain these security properties.
(To
> > me, this seems preferable to sending a reader to RFC 5866 for
> > discussion
> > of required security properties, which in turn sends the reader to
> RFC
> > 3588 for an information on the use of IPsec or TLS to achieve these
> > properties.)
> >
> > Finally, the end of the security considerations section claims that
> > "Authorization between DNCA Agent and
> >     DNCA Manager is beyond the scope of this document". I understand
> > that the authors do not want to mandate a particular mechanism for
> > making an authorization decision. That being said, providing some
> > guidance as to how a DNCA client would determine if a DNCA server
> were
> > authorized to issue NAT control commands. I imagine in practice that
> > the
> > way authorization is accomplished is that the NAT/NAPT device stores
> a
> > local authorization policy. (E.g., the device stores a list of
server
> > identities that authorized, and then once the server has been
> > authenticated its identity can be checked against the list). At the
> > very
> > least having text analogous to first paragraph of RFC 5866 Section
11
> > would be helpful (RFC 5866 says the device making the authorization
> > decision needs to have sufficient information to make this decision
> and
> > then provides examples of where this information would come from.)
> >
> > - Matt Lepinski
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DiME mailing list
> > DiME@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

From fbrockne@cisco.com  Thu Jun 30 03:27:05 2011
Return-Path: <fbrockne@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D1D21F86F9 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p91M6AIgW8R8 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EEEB21F86F5 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fbrockne@cisco.com; l=10689; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1309429623; x=1310639223; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:references:from:to; bh=RKH1w3YDJ/LFE80CTo5A9ffzsjAqSYGe2yhj30QUb2A=; b=hqIGUfmPTs1PtO9nlVcU+tRnboXI7yqwfuRTUib9T1V48zVXwKtJD4Kf MleMQgkFUscsjSaUqn3Yyv78WLZkHU+l3YdEmtl7O4GmI09Zb/1keplPg lNDuMJC57pvQnLVKnRdPCu0ORTFcmtxGu5sXRYSajIzoFNCCOSnMnhqmk Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EABhPDE6Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABSp1N3qWaeF4YxBJcuhEaGaw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,449,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="39993816"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2011 10:26:55 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p5UAQtcj030718; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:26:55 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-106.cisco.com ([144.254.74.81]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:26:55 +0200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:26:52 +0200
Message-ID: <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC061BB673@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-07.txt
Thread-Index: AcvdKhFfpanEBU1WY0O7XjbJcfu4vgAWDYdQFmLgu4A=
References: <4D716232.3070003@ericsson.com> <C99B79EA.96CB%shwethab@cisco.com>
From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>
To: <dime@ietf.org>, "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2011 10:26:55.0205 (UTC) FILETIME=[3BF88950:01CC3710]
Subject: Re: [Dime] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-07.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:27:05 -0000

FYI.=20
The updated draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-08 which I just posted should
also address the great set of comments that Miguel raised as part of his
Gen-ART review (thanks again Miguel for these great comments).=20
Please find some additional notes inline...

> > ------ Forwarded Message
> > From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
> > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:05:38 +0100
> > To: <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Shwetha bhandari <shwethab@cisco.com>,
> > <vaneeta.singh@gmail.com>, <vf0213@gmail.com>, Jouni Korhonen
> > <jouni.korhonen@nsn.com>, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>
> > Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-07.txt
> >
> > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> > reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the
> FAQ
> > at
> > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
> >
> > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments
> > you may receive.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-07.txt
> > Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>
> > Review Date: 2011-03-04
> > IETF LC End Date: 2011-03-08
> > IESG Telechat date:
> >
> > Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues,
> > described
> > in the review.
> >
> >
> > Major issues: none
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > - The draft relies on the roles of a DNCA Manager and a DNCA Agent.
I
> > don't understand why these two new roles need to be introduce, when
> RFC
> > 3588 already provide some roles. In particular I don't see the
> > difference
> > between what you call the DNCA Manager and what RFC 3588 calls a
> > Diameter
> > Server; and I don't see the difference between your DNCA Agent and
> RFC
> > 3588 Diameter Client. Furthermore, I haven't seen a proper
definition
> > of
> > DNCA Manager and DNCA Agent, so, I have my own idea, which basically
> > points to the Diameter Sever and Client I just mentioned.
> >
> > The suggestion is to not invent the wheel twice and refer to the
> > terminology in RFC 3588, unless you can prove that this is
> > insufficient.

...FB: Following the live discussion at the last meeting - and the
confirmation of the result on the mailing list, the document now uses
the generic "Diameter peer" wording, and in case the peer is associated
with a specific network element, the terminology of "DNCA Diameter peer
within the NAT-device" or "DNCA Diameter peer within the NAT-controller"
is used.

> >
> > - When I was reading Section 4, which discusses the procedures, and
I
> > was
> > asking myself whether this application would use the ASR/ASA
> commands.
> > I
> > finished reading Section 4, and I found no reference to these
> commands,
> > and I thought there was an issue there. But then I found the first
> > reference to ASR/ASA in Section 5.3, and elsewhere in the document.
> So,
> > in order to avoid that the reader is as confused as me, I would
> suggest
> > to add a new section, which would be 4.6, and discusses "Session
> Abort"
> > like the rest of the procedures of the application.

...FB: We've added a new section 4.6 describing session abort.

> >
> > - On Section 6.2, the NCA command, I noticed that the
NC-Request-Type
> > AVP
> > is required in the message, because it is enclosed in curly brackets
> > {}.
> > It is not clear to me why this AVP should be mandatory in the answer
> (I
> > agree it should be mandatory in the request).

...FB: NC-Request-Type is now optional.

> >
> > - Also on Section 6.2, the NCA command, I don't see why the Result-
> Code
> > AVP is optional in an answer. I thought an answer should always
> report
> > a
> > result of any kind.

...FB: Result-Code is now mandatory.

> >
> > - On Section 7, page 23, I have a question on the state machine
> marked
> > as
> > "Open   Access Session end detected    Send STR     Discon". I don't
> > understand what is "Access Session end detected". It is not obvious
> > from
> > the rest of the document, so, I guess it should be explained.

...FB: We clarified the term "access session" in the document ("The
state=20
   machine description uses the term "access session" to describe the=20
   connectivity service offered to the endpoint or host. =20
   "Access session" should not be confused with the
   Diameter session ID.")

> >
> > - On Section 7, page 23, there are two instances of the term
> "client".
> > Now I am not sure if this is the Diameter client (that I think you
> > should
> > be using throughout the document) or it is something else.

...FB: Client was referring to the endpoint/user in this context, so
   indeed was confusing. The doc is using more generic wording now

> >
> > - On Section 7, the DNCA Agent state machine (page 24). There is a
> line
> > that reads: "Open  NCR request received, and unable to provide
> > requested
> > NAT control service      Send failed NCA, Cleanup       Idle". So,
if
> I
> > understand correctly, the case is that under an Open state, if the
> DNCA
> > Agent receives an NCR request, but it is not able to provide the NAT
> > control service, so it sends back an NCA with a failed result. The
> > question is whether the NCR created a session or not. From the state
> > machine I understand it didn't create a session. So, I can conclude
> > that
> > a session is created when a successful NCA is sent. If this is the
> > case,
> > then look at Figure 5 on page 13, where there is a "Create session
> > state"
> > in between an NCR and an NCA message. If this NCA had failed, you
> would
> > still had a session created. So, somehow you need to make Figure 5
> > congruent with the state machine of the DNCA Agent. You can modify
> > figure
> > 5 (and the surrounding text) to indicate that the session is created
> > after a successful NCA (and not before), or you can modify the state
> > machine line I mentioned, to indicate that not only you should send
a
> > failed NCA, but also transition to a Disconn state in order to send
> an
> > ASR.

...FB: Figure 5 and the text got updated, stating that the DNCA Diameter
peer within the NAT-device creates session state only if it is able to
comply with the NCR and sends NCA with Result-Code set to
DIAMETER_SUCCESS.=20

> >
> > - On Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, the RESOURCE_FAILURE and the
> > UNKNOWN_BINDING_RULE_NAME have both exactly the same description.
The
> > only difference is that the former is a transient failure whereas
the
> > latter is a permanent failure. Honestly, I don't understand the
> > difference between both, and when I should generate one or the
other.
> I
> > would suggest that the latter adds a paragraph starting with "The
> > difference between this code and the RESOURCE_FAILURE is ..."
> >
> > Similarly, I don't see the difference between
> UNKNOWN_BINDING_RULE_NAME
> > and BINDING_FAILURE. I also suggest to clearly explain it or delete
> one
> > of them.

...FB: The two confusing definitions have been resolved to have only:=20
  - UNKNOWN_BINDING_RULE_NAME
  - BINDING_FAILURE

> >
> > - Section 12, IANA considerations section. You need to mention the
> > registry and subregistry where you want IANA to operate. For
example:
> > This document instructs IANA to assign values to the [choose:
> > Commands/AVP Codes/etc] subregistry of the Authentication,
> > Authorization,
> > and Accounting (AAA) Parameters registry.
> >
> > Also, in Tables 1 to 4, under the "Reference" column, you don't need
> to
> > refer to a section in this draft, but just right "RFC XXXX", which
> > later
> > will be replaced by the RFC number of this draft.
> >
> > Additionally, the headings of each table needs to be congruent with
> the
> > registry, so, Table 2 should read "AVP Code        Attribute Name ",
> > and
> > so on. Take a look at the registry in
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xml
and
> > you
> > make some similar table.

...FB: We re-formatted the IANA section - to follow the format of RFC
3588
  (we kept some of the reference to sections in place - given that they
   might help some of the readers).

> >
> > - I have an unparseable sentence in Section 12. Please split it and
> > make
> > it understandable.
> >
> >                                                  To secure the
> >     information exchange between the authorizing entity (DNCA
> Manager)
> >     and the NAT device (DNCA Agent) requires bilateral
authentication
> > of
> >     the involved parties, authorization of the involved parties to
> >     perform the required procedures and functions, and procedures to
> >     ensure integrity and confidentiality of the information exchange
> > MAY
> >     be performed.

...FB: Indeed unparseable... - the entire security section (also thanks=20
   to Matt's great comments) got extended and re-written.

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nits:
> >
> > - Section 3.3, at the beginning of the section, add "server" as
> > follows:
> >
> > s/The role of the DNCA can be/The role of the DNCA server can be
> >                                          ^^^^^^
> >
> > - On Section 6.2, you have a duplicated "*[AVP]" towards the end of
> the
> > command.
> >
> > - On the title of Sections 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6 add "AVPs" as follows:
> > s/Reused from/Reused AVPs from"
> >
> > - On Figure 14 (page 29), towards the bottom, there is a reference
to
> > the
> > "V" bit. However, the "V" is never used in this figure, so, I
suggest
> > to
> > delete the sentence that describes the "V".
> >
> > - Section 8.7.1 under INITIAL_REQUEST, missing "a"
> > s/is used to install binding at/is used to install a binding at
> >
> > - First paragraph in Section 8.7 various missing articles and other
> > typos:
> > s/that references predefined policy/that reference a predefined
> policy
> > s/policy template on DNCA Agent/policy template on the DNCA Agent
> > s/contain static bindings, maximum number/contain static binding, a
> > maximum number
> > s/to be allowed, address pool/to be allowed, or an address pool
> > s/external binding address/external binding addresses

... FB: Thanks for catching those nits. They got addressed as well.

Thanks again for the very through and detailed comments.

Regards, Frank

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >        Miguel G.
> > --
> > Miguel A. Garcia
> > +34-91-339-3608
> > Ericsson Spain
> >
> > ------ End of Forwarded Message


From carlberg@g11.org.uk  Thu Jun 30 06:17:18 2011
Return-Path: <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728E111E80CF for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CFS2wedZ3lTj for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from portland.eukhosting.net (portland.eukhosting.net [92.48.97.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170B811E80BF for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=g11.org.uk; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=UkZjPp+DlOHfJJaGu3vJHdA9EcobGCBm1UbgmSd4DwGCgOuMEDieey0U150/Zfh1cBQ3ep5HW2APx4lxIiBjQmjEM0wq+wxBaUpimtZN/WecRQCg8kdni5lewUkZ1q5q;
Received: from c-76-111-69-4.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([76.111.69.4]:53535 helo=[192.168.0.20]) by portland.eukhosting.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <carlberg@g11.org.uk>) id 1QcH7B-0007YS-0n; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:17:05 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F577A97CB9@ftrdmel1>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:17:10 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1DD804C5-8FA9-4C6C-9528-1C109F6EEF87@g11.org.uk>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0403328F01@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com><7807DA41-18F0-4388-9C29-F6E3B60F8DA2@g11.org.uk> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040351208D@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F577A97CB9@ftrdmel1>
To: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - portland.eukhosting.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - g11.org.uk
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:17:18 -0000

ok, I'll issue another version within the next day or so with the =
changes agreed upon.  And I'll see if there is some general wording I =
can use to point the reader to other security considerations to keep in =
mind.

-ken


On Jun 29, 2011, at 4:42 AM, <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> =
<lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:

> Hi Dan, Ken,
>=20
> I tend to agree with Ken. =46rom the Diameter protocol point of view, =
there is no additional issue. For the use of the priority parameters, =
there are already references to the related specifications. =46rom E2E =
point of view, I think that the security aspects are covered with all =
the specifications.
> Anyway, from the reader point of view, it may not harm to find a =
reference to the corresponding documents in our security consideration =
section, at least for information.
>=20
> Lionel
>=20
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part =
de Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Envoy=E9 : mercredi 29 juin 2011 10:16
> =C0 : ken carlberg
> Cc : dime@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Hi Ken,=20
>=20
> Thank you for the answer. It looks like we agree on all items with the
> exception of T6. I still hold the opinion that as values carried in =
the
> DIME fileds are being defined in other RFCs, the references to the
> security considerations sections of these RFCs are appropriate, but I
> will not block the document on this. Please go ahead and issue a =
revised
> ID with the changes, so that we can send the document to IETF LC.=20
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Dan=20
>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ken carlberg [mailto:carlberg@g11.org.uk]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:51 PM
>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> Cc: dime@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt
>>=20
>> Hi Dan,
>>=20
>> I'm terribly sorry for the tardy response!
>>=20
>>> Hi,
>>>=20
>>> Please find below the AD review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-
>> 03.txt.
>>> I would suggest that the issues raised in this review be clarified
>> and
>>> the necessary edits performed in a revised I-D before progressing
>> this
>>> document to IETF Last Call.
>>>=20
>>> Technical comments are marked by T, and Editorial comments are
> marked
>> by
>>> an E.
>>>=20
>>> T1. I think that it's better to start using references to RFC
> 3588bis
>>> rather than 3588 - as soon (hopefully) 3588 will be obsoleted.
>>=20
>> ok, will do.
>>=20
>>> T2. In RFC 3181 the Preemption Priority and Defending Priority
> fields
>>> are 16-bit unsigned while here the Preemption-Priority and
>>> Defending-Priority AVPs are Unsigned32. Also admission priority
>>> parameter defined in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]
>> is 8
>>> bit while the Admission-Priority AVP is of type Unsigned32. Should
>> not
>>> these limits be mentioned in the definitions in sections 3.1 and
> 3.2?
>>=20
>> The original intention was to provide some additional room for
>> expansion for the defined AVP.  And you're correct, that given that
>> line of thought, we should mention these limitations.  However, I
> think
>> a cleaner approach will be just to properly align the fields.  So =
I'll
>> change the AVP to that of a 16-bit unsigned for the
> preemption-priority
>> AVP and the defending-priority AVP.
>> And I'll also change the Admission-Priority AVP to an 8-bit unsigned.
>>=20
>>> T3. Section 3.3.1:
>>>=20
>>>  The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
>>>  UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique
>> ordered
>>>  set of priority values as described in [rfc4412].
>>>=20
>>> Should not this AVP refer here to the priority namespace, rather
> than
>>> priority values?
>>=20
>> It actually does refer to the priority namespace by referring to it =
as
>> a "string" identifying a  "unique ordered set".  Perhaps I can add
> some
>> clarity by stating the following:
>>=20
>>     The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD)
>>     is of type UTF8String.  This AVP contains a string
>>     (i.e., a Namespace entry) that identifies a set of
>>     priority values unique to the Namespace.  Examples
>>     of Namespaces and corresponding sets of priorities
>>     are found in [rfc4412].
>>=20
>>> T4. Section 3.3 - RFC 4412 allows for new namespaces and associated
>>> ordered value sets to be defined in the future extending the
>> registries
>>> defined in sections 12.1 and 12.2. The text in the I-D should
> reflect
>>> this extensibility.
>>=20
>> you raise a good point.  But I would add that all the protocol fields
>> associated with the AVPs defined in the document allow for additional
>> values beyond what may have already been defined or registered.  So I
>> think i should just make this generic statement earlier in the draft
>> and not confine the extensibility to just those that pertaining to
> rfc-
>> 4412
>>=20
>>> T5. In draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-15.txt ALRP Namespace is
>> codified
>>> in 16bits and ALRP Value is codified in 8 bits, while ALRP-Namespace
>> AVP
>>> and ALRP-Value AVP are of type Unsigned32. Should not these limits
> be
>>> mentioned in the definitions in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2?
>>=20
>> same as above.  I'll change the AVPs to 16 bits and 8 bits
>> respectively, instead of the type unsigned32.
>>=20
>>> T6. I think that the Security Considerations section should also
>> refer
>>> to the security considerations in RFC 3181, RFC 4412, and
>>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp which refer to the fields defined in
>>> those documents that can be carried in the AVPs defined here.
>>=20
>> Here we have a bit of a disagreement.  The security sections in rfc-
>> 3181 and rfc-4412 pertain to the particular protocol of RSVP and SIP,
>> respectively.  It seems a bit of a stretch to then fold a reference =
to
>> them into the security section of this document since they don't have
> a
>> direct applicability to the Diameter protocol.
>>=20
>>> E1. The document has no exact date - just the month is mentioned.
>>>=20
>>> E2. Running idnits results in a number of warnings due to exceeding
>> the
>>> maximum (72) allowed length of a row.
>>=20
>> understood.  And thanks again for the review.
>>=20
>> -ken
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

