Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: Back to extensions...

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 07:44:40 +0200

Bernard Aboba wrote:

> 
> End-to-end security is mandatory to implement, it is not 
> mandatory to use. So if it is not needed, you don't have
> to turn it on.
> 
> 

Yes, but the mandatory-to-implement part *is* what I am
worrying about!

Along the same lines, I would also like to suggest that we can advance
the base Diameter specs to an RFC status before the e2e parts. It is
my understanding that the base protocol parts must be published _soon_
in order for them to be useful for various third generation mobile
network standardization uses, and it would be unfortunate if the e2e
work delayed this, given that at least in the beginning we may not
need e2e there.

[I believe e2e is very useful but not always, and it is
my gut feeling that it will take some time to nail down the details
of e2e, not to mention the picking of the solution among the competing
ones.]

Jari

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:43:26 -0800 (PST)

> of e2e, not to mention the picking of the solution among the competing

3GPP2 has exactly the same concerns. They have expressed a desire for the e2e
to NOT slow down progress of the base and other extensions down.

PatC

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 06:32:25 -0800

>  given that at least in the beginning we may not need e2e there.

Can you describe why e2e may not be needed in the initial
implementations of 3G?

Looking at RFC 2989, it seems that the e2e requirements came
out of the need to use AAA to distribute keys, tunnel passwords,
and user passwords. RFC 2607 describes the security problems
that result from using RADIUS to carry out these and other
functions.

Are you saying that the initial implementations of 3G will not
use AAA for key distribution, tunnel passwords or PAP? If this
were the case, and in addition, "routing brokers" were used
(e.g. proxies don't modify attributes), then I'd agree that e2e
security might not be required in such a situation.

>to NOT slow down progress of the base and other extensions down.

If the question is whether the base spec can proceed as long as it
has the required functionality to support e2e, whether the e2e spec
is completely done, I think the answer to that is "yes".