Hi all,

Here is text for security. Apol= ogize for being late, Anthony.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D

5.6. =C2=A0Security

REQ6: DMM MUST b= e protected by security mechanisms/protocols in terms of network access sec= urity and end-to-end security. Network access security is required between = the mobile host/router and the access network deploying DMM, to allow only = a legitimate mobile host/router to use DMM. End-to-end security is required= between nodes that participate in DMM, to protect DMM signaling messages. = Existing security mechanisms/protocols MAY be possible to provide sufficien= t security protections to DMM. For instance, EAP-based authentication can b= e used for network access security, while IPsec can be used for end-to-end = security. Note that when the existing security mechanisms/protocols are app= lied to DMM, security risks that MAY be introduced by DMM MUST be considere= d to be eliminated.=C2=A0

A security mechanism/protocol that provides proof of po= ssession of past and new IP addresses of a mobile host/router MAY be needed= .

Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonatio= n, denial of service, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on, MAY be launched= against DMM. Accordingly, security mechanisms/protocols providing access c= ontrol, integrity, authentication, authorization, confidentiality, etc. MUS= T be required to protect DMM. For instance, an illegitimate node attempts t= o access a network providing DMM. Another example is that a malicious node = can forge a number of signaling messages thus redirecting traffic from its = legitimate path. Consequently, the specific node is under a denial of servi= ce attack, whereas other nodes do not receive their traffic. As signaling m= essages MAY travel over the Internet, the end-to-end security between commu= nicating nodes MUST be required.

This requirement addresses the problems of potentially = insecure mobility management protocols which make deployment infeasible bec= ause platforms conforming to the protocols are at risk for data loss and nu= merous other dangers, including financial harm to users. (I leave it to be = modified or improved by Anthony)

6. =C2=A0Security Considerations

(Now I do no= t think we need to put text here)

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

<= /div>

On= Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Seil Jeon <seiljeon@av.it.pt>= wrote:

Hi, Anthony and all,
=C2=A0
Actually, when it comes to reviewing BJ's comment, it seems tou= ching very fundamental statement by mentioning the need of IP layer mobilit= y support for multicast session (if needed), though this requirement itself= has implicitly included it. But it's ok to me.

=C2=A0
@Jouni, we respond to the ticket #22 as well.=
As you know, we have tried to identify and discuss the= meaning of flexible distribution in the list. If we unfold the meaning hid= den in the abstract words, it would be fit to what you said. But the reword= ed sentences were mostly copied from =E2=80=9CMotivation=E2=80=9D paragraph= and arranged. Overall, the Motivation was reworded.

=C2=A0
By taking into account two comments, the revi= sed text is as follows.
=C2=A0
REQ7: DMM SHOULD = consider multicast early so that solutions can

be develop= ed not only to provide IP= mobility to keep IP multicast sessions when it is needed, but to avoid network inefficiency issues in multica= st
traffic delivery (such as duplicate multicast subscriptions
towards the = downstream tunnel entitie= sy). The multicast solution<= /span>s
should therefore avoid restricting the management of all IP
multicast tr= affic to a single host through a dedicated
(tunnel) interface on multica= st-capable access routers.
Motivation: Existing multicast deployment = have been introduced after completing the design of the reference mobility = protocol, then optimization and extensions have been followed, by =E2=80=9C= patching-up=E2=80=9D procedure, thus leading to network inefficiency and no= n-optimal routing. The multicast solutions should therefore be required to = consider efficiency nature in multicast traffic delivery.

=C2=A0
p.s. @Jouni, I remember #33 ticket was resolv= ed by answering Charlie=E2=80=99s comment. Check it, please.<= /p>
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
Regards,=
Seil

=C2=A0
=C2=A0
-----Original Message-----
From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of h chan
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:26 AM
To: Jouni Korhonen; dmm@ietf.org; KIM, BYOUNG-JO J (BYOUN= G-JO
Cc: Jong-Hyouk Lee
Subject: Re: [DM= M] requirements and the security considerations

=C2=A0
Seil or S= ergio,
Can you reply to the following:
=C2=A0
The comments from Byoung-Jo Kim to REQ7 in v= ersion 4 is as follows:

=C2=A0
I suggest to drop this requirement or make a = clearer statement like "DMM should allow multicast to survive IP layer= mobility without packet loss", or more modestly, "DMM should not= foreclose multicast support during IP layer mobility.", etc..<= u>

=C2=A0
=C2=A0
His suggested text= is to replace REQ7 with something like the following:
= =C2=A0
=C2=A0=C2=A0 REQ7:=C2=A0 DMM SHOULD enable multi= cast packet delivery during mobility events as needed.

=C2=A0
H Anthony Chan
=C2= =A0
=C2=A0
-----Original Message-----
From: h chan
Sent: Thursday, June 20, = 2013 7:15 PM

To: 'Jouni Korhonen'; dmm@ietf.org<= /span>; 'KIM, BYOUNG-JO J (BYOUNG-JO'
Cc: &= #39;Jong-Hyouk Lee'

Subject: RE: [DMM] requirements and the security considerations
=C2=A0
The comments from Byoung-Jo Kim to R= EQ6 and Section 6 in version 4 were the following:
Ther= e are too much text in the security REQ6 that are vague and too wide.

=C2=A0
And Section 6. Security considerations should= say "none", 'cause that's usually the section that discu= sses security considerations related to the draft itself. Since this is a r= equirement draft, there is no such thing.

There is a separate requirement earlier to cover security issues due to = DMM.
=C2=A0
REQ6:=C2=A0 Security co= nsiderations
=C2=A0
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 DMM protocol solutions MUST conside= r security risks introduced

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 by DMM into the n= etwork.=C2=A0 Examples of such risks to be
=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 considered may include authentic= ation and authorization mechanisms
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 that allow a mobile host/router to use= the mobility

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 support provided = by the DMM solution; redirecting traffic to
=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 the wrong host when providing= DMM support; signaling message
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 protection for authentication, integrity = and confidentiality.

=C2=A0
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0 Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 serv= ice, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on, may become newly <= /p>
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0possible = or easier to mount due to the introduction of DMM.=C2=A0 Proof

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 of possession of = past and new IP addresses may be needed.
=C2=A0<= u>
H Anthony Chan
=C2=A0
= =C2=A0
-----Original Message-----

From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:40 AM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: [DMM= ] requirements and the security considerations

=C2=A0
<no co-chair cap/bowler><= /p>
=C2=A0
Folks,
=C2=A0
I have been reading Section 6 Security Considerations:
=C2=A0
=C2=A0=C2=A0 It is necessary to provide sufficie= nt defense against possible
=C2=A0=C2=A0 security attac= ks, or to adopt existing security mechanisms and
=C2=A0= =C2=A0 protocols to provide sufficient security protections.=C2=A0 For inst= ance,

=C2=A0=C2=A0 EAP-based authentication can be used for access network sec= urity,
=C2=A0=C2=A0 while IPsec can be used for end-to-= end security.
=C2=A0
I think this t= ext still deserves some tweaking. First, "provide sufficient defense a= gainst possible security attacks".. against whom?

=C2=A0
Second, should the text say something that th= e DMM protocol itself must not be usable as a tool to launch an attack by a= malicious mobile node that happens to know that it is attached to a networ= k implementing DMM and knows (somehow) how the DMM protocol functions?

=C2=A0
- Jouni
_________________= ______________________________
dmm mailing list<= u>
dmm@ietf.org

= https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________= ________________________

dmm mailing list
dmm@ie= tf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

_______________________________________________=
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

RSM= Department, TELECOM Bretagne, France

Jong-Hyouk Lee, living some= where between /dev/null and /dev/random

#email:=C2= =A0jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com

#webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/

--047d7b339f27d2360904dfc080b8-- From rute.sofia@ulusofona.pt Mon Jun 24 03:50:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1105A21E80DF for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 03:50:52 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id By-v9zzDatVT for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 03:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-x229.google.com (mail-bk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9A821E80DB for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 03:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id jc3so4167900bkc.28 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 03:50:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=3OltOFw99iyYEpvh87TOrdjEAfCgH13gzvBXnvThfB8=; b=EcIcScuSpb9gxfgbgIVGbVp7dP2+mJmFR1iTVYGd3XzBvWB0gQe4NAp+ZzQ89oNZEW EbcMYQy+FloHLtdsRWjP3iW5HuNHpMraKWHeisDB1CxWMQnUELfS903+CXWmbqDPLsyw lrIV9tP4GB1Bb7MTxWyhIp/JTUZPmnpOgJhM0iK8tiqKGMyXKTSHPWrYUOXbWgNOOM3Y gCy7hcceI9f7KtozziboD/2MC8q274/FCwfJw3FsAB7I3k50yJ9MLj2LkpS467GTfc5a UTEwD156LT7UYs+sPKoVp2IS//jD9go+7Wtt9QUFzR7S5OklDpNFFc5m4klXhhA8OoSN zT+g== X-Received: by 10.205.24.81 with SMTP id rd17mr3635362bkb.138.1372071048469; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 03:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux-8b5g.lan (sitivoip.ulusofona.pt. [193.137.75.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id oe10sm4279151bkb.1.2013.06.24.03.50.46 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 03:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51C82485.1000906@ulusofona.pt> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:50:45 +0100 From: Rute Sofia User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmm@ietf.org, dmm-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnGmDz5xjUKscxvv3B5MfxSFafLw6Ulej1QKcGJ5sUYhP/hk8RokZgPx1m7WDqDT47J8fO7 Subject: [DMM] DMM at IETF 87, contributions X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:50:52 -0000 Dear Jouni and Julien, as the IETF 87th meeting is approaching, I would like to know if the 2-hour reserved DMM slot is still up, and if there is still room to propose contributions. Best Regards, -- Melhores Cumprimentos/Best Regards/mit freundlichen Gruessen, Rute Carvalho Sofia ........................................................ Rute Sofia, PhD (rute.sofia@ulusofona.pt) SITILABS - R&D in Informatics Systems and Technologies Scientific Director for Technology University Lusofona, Portugal rute.sofia@ulusofona.pt http://siti.ulusofona.pt Tel.: +351 21 7505021/20 ....................................................... From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 12:42:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477F011E8137 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:42:07 -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=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wm-IUfWubq4E for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-x22f.google.com (mail-ea0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A7111E8130 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:42:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f175.google.com with SMTP id z7so6953903eaf.20 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:42:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=HWSxeWFL69FeuDFBoHugAPQax3GTwNPREIA/qkzckwk=; b=O4/jh3sQcobJR2e4hjGOEsyiO5Bz+P9XsPbH4s8EiiBa5onFZpp9gXIsDq3xeNZoGD kjAXMjfka4jKdSJ13GoPIGf0ZllM6pWXmxGcw+e1MK+23kmb1WSof3HQX/CQtaPvFmCR JE2PVsqG/0LAbE7CEyxSmEuO5RZUi5ekznT/lp383H+7zN1LwnTAHuHXXFBlHQF5fZvz 7RhxhzuomA0qiX4NEwOMQ0dC/h4tZJSUclmcxUlVbV0jcDIcrxCVkHpsHB0mQLhOFG3M LRi296yILh3piepSjitajsfmdJTd2DhqgxwnTJJ3bSgMZ0ATBBOEaIg9qakCoTP4Mo5U zVGw== X-Received: by 10.14.6.198 with SMTP id 46mr474656een.121.1372189321097; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [188.117.15.110] ([188.117.15.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w43sm38194301eez.6.2013.06.25.12.41.59 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:42:00 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 $1508$) From: Jouni Korhonen In-Reply-To: <51C82485.1000906@ulusofona.pt> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:41:58 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <51C82485.1000906@ulusofona.pt> To: Rute Sofia X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: dmm@ietf.org, dmm-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] DMM at IETF 87, contributions X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:42:07 -0000 The IETF wide draft agenda is due 27th June. We are still supposed to = have our DMM WG meeting. Agenda slots for the WG meeting are given typically = using the algorithm: first WG items, second chartered/milestoned but still = individual work usually using fifo order, and last the rest in fifo order till the = slot time runs out. - Jouni On Jun 24, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Rute Sofia wrote: > Dear Jouni and Julien, >=20 > as the IETF 87th meeting is approaching, I would like to know if the = 2-hour reserved DMM slot is still up, and if there is still room to = propose contributions. >=20 > Best Regards, >=20 > --=20 > Melhores Cumprimentos/Best Regards/mit freundlichen Gruessen, >=20 > Rute Carvalho Sofia >=20 >=20 > ........................................................ > Rute Sofia, PhD (rute.sofia@ulusofona.pt) > SITILABS - R&D in Informatics Systems and Technologies > Scientific Director for Technology > University Lusofona, Portugal > rute.sofia@ulusofona.pt >=20 > http://siti.ulusofona.pt > Tel.: +351 21 7505021/20 > ....................................................... >=20 > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 12:47:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40EC321E80CE for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:47:06 -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=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YHmoc9TA4fmi for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-x235.google.com (mail-ea0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C700421E80CD for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f181.google.com with SMTP id a15so7114626eae.40 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:47:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=IRASglmbKyLxSCw7Mve5TGvXRjm+175+mFjHL3VsPCA=; b=sGKTjc0KQgYNwxgUpFReCHycL205jYjyrX8n1VgRU4uNgb52MEyFSMkWBoE5eX8kot 3/cmuEA/7a+xH+0dVHFEvkdEiyAsUj/FAL11hOEV/LnLjsLFZxY5ZrP6Fiukz1o/Iihj O5jaQnJX7RoM3GXWGvTbNK5Oj+FTMrUCxaYjhLhrBkvDLEPNZJ9y4e1764ASxCC6OvPg wq0gl0iDOvSs2LJr5F4OjcE3ZRa6szdx8wYiMYA7nAkUxQzs/isSsn6K9pGRVMXEFxIu FQZ001jPzQsainXFFkG3/yWkrt566gU/p+OizH+/LhuxIbQm74ueqYFam3rxLRsVRagg Wcfg== X-Received: by 10.14.47.73 with SMTP id s49mr559998eeb.71.1372189623602; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [188.117.15.110] ([188.117.15.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o5sm38225938eef.5.2013.06.25.12.46.59 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 $1508$) From: Jouni Korhonen In-Reply-To: <000301ce6e7c$063bb760$12b32620$@av.it.pt> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:46:58 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4A026278-F5A5-4A89-9CE2-AC6DC12A9343@gmail.com> References: <6E31144C030982429702B11D6746B98C370928A2@szxeml557-mbx.china.huawei.com> <000301ce6e7c$063bb760$12b32620$@av.it.pt> To: Seil Jeon , "Charles E. Perkins" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] requirements and the security considerations X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:47:06 -0000 Sorry for the slow response. I am supposed to be on my summer vacation = ;) On Jun 21, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Seil Jeon wrote: > p.s. @Jouni, I remember #33 ticket was resolved by answering Charlie=92s= comment. Check it, please. Probably. However, this issue was not recorded by me so I have not cleared it either automatically. @Charlie: does -05 address your concern on #33 ? - Jouni > =20 > =20 > Regards, > Seil > =20 > =20 From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 12:58:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1706821E805F for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:58:26 -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=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gZKy7zkmV7cY for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-x235.google.com (mail-ee0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F70F21E804D for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f53.google.com with SMTP id c41so7011886eek.26 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:58:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=R4gyFmIvOi1fcBVRJjei6P1WzpgAn5BXBWdkcJ5/62A=; b=Gj1d8Yr+M78tk5GN6IrU/NvyopDDx4qHDm03RcrZIxQxfdVa7Rg970o3MrHuQLaOho nm4SvqW/Fn9e0jpbhU5bgarv8h1L3NJ0HT1YanSoEnHz1Ex8hcYc+qBjRHPYCtoHXvDD Tl2fvS0FRS/rfp2J0bcOfKQEpqtePGKizeD6TwhOF+BKyoJoRh4Kkct+JcpnHXs9EIF8 52y1k0ipBbupNJXU0a8/bltyMlNuuekd+ua4VfTzSJ+lIwGJNf2w3/9Aa3uxrCr0rtMr UzGQYkyAOYH51BtjTyVGYOxEQsfJQRetbvEtmqPhvZ0OG0yxJ203UgJ2rOamXLLhk058 awZw== X-Received: by 10.14.199.134 with SMTP id x6mr543374een.114.1372190304256; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [188.117.15.110] ([188.117.15.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bj46sm38266395eeb.13.2013.06.25.12.58.23 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 $1508$) From: Jouni Korhonen In-Reply-To: <6E31144C030982429702B11D6746B98C3709289C@szxeml557-mbx.china.huawei.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:58:22 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <14AA4109-B449-4A00-9487-476086DD8540@gmail.com> References: <6E31144C030982429702B11D6746B98C3709289C@szxeml557-mbx.china.huawei.com> To: h chan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: Jong-Hyouk Lee , "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [DMM] requirements and the security considerations X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:58:26 -0000 On Jun 21, 2013, at 3:14 AM, h chan wrote: > The comments from Byoung-Jo Kim to REQ6 and Section 6 in version 4 = were the following: > There are too much text in the security REQ6 that are vague and too = wide.=20 >=20 > And Section 6. Security considerations should say "none", 'cause = that's usually the section that discusses security considerations = related to the draft itself. Since this is a requirement draft, there is = no such thing. > There is a separate requirement earlier to cover security issues due = to DMM. In some recent requirements documents I have seen rather extensive Security Consideration sections. What I would assume to see here, is a generic discussion on the security considerations on distributed environment. That is not about requirements itself per se. - JOuni (as an individual.. too hot here to wear any hat etc :) >=20 > REQ6: Security considerations >=20 > DMM protocol solutions MUST consider security risks = introduced > by DMM into the network. Examples of such risks to be > considered may include authentication and authorization = mechanisms > that allow a mobile host/router to use the mobility > support provided by the DMM solution; redirecting traffic to > the wrong host when providing DMM support; signaling message > protection for authentication, integrity and confidentiality. >=20 > Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of > service, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on, may become = newly=20 > possible or easier to mount due to the introduction of DMM. = Proof > of possession of past and new IP addresses may be needed. >=20 > H Anthony Chan >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Jouni Korhonen > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:40 AM > To: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: [DMM] requirements and the security considerations >=20 > >=20 > Folks, >=20 > I have been reading Section 6 Security Considerations: >=20 > It is necessary to provide sufficient defense against possible > security attacks, or to adopt existing security mechanisms and > protocols to provide sufficient security protections. For instance, > EAP-based authentication can be used for access network security, > while IPsec can be used for end-to-end security. >=20 > I think this text still deserves some tweaking. First, "provide = sufficient defense against possible security attacks".. against whom? >=20 > Second, should the text say something that the DMM protocol itself = must not be usable as a tool to launch an attack by a malicious mobile = node that happens to know that it is attached to a network implementing = DMM and knows (somehow) how the DMM protocol functions? >=20 > - Jouni > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 13:07:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC4521F9E71 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:07:55 -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=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mRlxgADMvm4d for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:07:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-x22d.google.com (mail-ea0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A95F21F9E56 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:07:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f173.google.com with SMTP id g15so7118472eak.18 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:07:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=vqHQx7G95rBvda6tOcf5SqJG1iOCc6qbGLWXiZDPdNg=; b=R49WLim1J4kKnbPv48cwHOEJOFUUloeUZS333CrYdaYzmovh10s42BVudprKJqxw3X QPQFED6BSKeC+NmdS8aKFOOUpYGnFPlIT7yp6ui7qz9cjOyRtYsSDI/4ibZMvbmWTdnB iSDMBXWlD+Mq/YhUD3LeheVOYIJlSfsmTQZ3aA+Ng/0dxu7SDxPrZokiviKZKDHcroWb AL7wKp6f6S1m1HneQ6l9ypXqFU0FqKNQuOFq7aH61WD14eUIUyiHqQDjAFz++M15OK2V GdblV918wb/oQqBk3iCkyxEF0uOsGKKeGW8qQFue0q4Jj8Fdmbo8UXdKwngRfA1dLqgU hX6Q== X-Received: by 10.15.107.6 with SMTP id ca6mr557436eeb.120.1372190873774; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [188.117.15.110] ([188.117.15.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n5sm38319805eed.9.2013.06.25.13.07.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 $1508$) From: Jouni Korhonen In-Reply-To: <000301ce6e7c$063bb760$12b32620$@av.it.pt> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:07:51 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9F98D456-0471-422D-B170-D4606ADB363D@gmail.com> References: <6E31144C030982429702B11D6746B98C370928A2@szxeml557-mbx.china.huawei.com> <000301ce6e7c$063bb760$12b32620$@av.it.pt> To: Seil Jeon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] requirements and the security considerations X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:07:55 -0000 > By taking into account two comments, the revised text is as follows. >=20 > REQ7: DMM SHOULD consider multicast early so that solutions can >=20 > be developed not only to provide IP mobility to keep IP multicast = sessions when it is needed, but to avoid network inefficiency issues in = multicast > traffic delivery (such as duplicate multicast subscriptions > towards the downstream tunnel entitiesy). The multicast solutions > should therefore avoid restricting the management of all IP > multicast traffic to a single host through a dedicated > (tunnel) interface on multicast-capable access routers. >=20 > Motivation: Existing multicast deployment have been introduced after = completing the design of the reference mobility protocol, then = optimization and extensions have been followed, by =93patching-up=94 = procedure, thus leading to network inefficiency and non-optimal routing. = The multicast solutions should therefore be required to consider = efficiency nature in multicast traffic delivery. >=20 The above would work for me.. at least better than the current text in the I-D. - Jouni From maxpassion@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 03:48:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1BD21F9702 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:48:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yL78aWN3vvwX for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-x22c.google.com (mail-ve0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E210121F997A for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id jz10so501281veb.3 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:48:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9FG/eco4i+LzGmN4ScLBFnyibNqZOsjb9whjj3nEwV4=; b=VEQOebjQ7ohMiKYh4xFoIBB5qwmrSSJuWHPYVE63SEq/GvWZHE3XB7lGqwPKZvjjSz P1hBlCcWgQzJ8hH+ghBkeHZIWy/tZuMRCnpbbpQhPSX9rwdjjkVhpmkYnS7HAd8k3VIL 9Diz3Cygdiczan3UN0QKEorH96Hjy2PnH52H8yVQ74u8EyO0EgjgpadT/qaJmmNg/Col ks+ZX7zRg3Exo8FDxcjbxeeK58KTy2Spx3wwE6/LqXeVXMgKCb8KeZzIMWuCpIcYPNF7 aNxvCg0bXzP3I75H/2FGCgbemOw6bGuUlri6BfHdpvX2Lo2tbIaod6r8lYMLXbGHBQHY vVJg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.69.177 with SMTP id f17mr2844477vdu.48.1372330082332; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.210.195 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:48:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:48:01 +0800 Message-ID: From: Liu Dapeng To: "Zuniga, Juan Carlos" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:48:19 -0000 Hello folks: To make good progress in Berlin meeting, it is better for us to start discussion and resolve comments in the list now. Please help to review and feel free to send comments. quick summary of the draft: ----- Section 4 'DMM practice' mainly analyses the mobility deployment practice in WLAN and 3GPP network. Both client-based and network-based mobility protocols are discussed. Section 5 'Gap analysis' tentatively discusses the gaps. Please have a look whether you agree on those gaps and whether you want to propose any new ones. Any input from the group will be welcomed. Thanks, Dapeng Liu 2013/6/17 Zuniga, Juan Carlos : > Hi all, > > We have posted an updated version of the current practices and gap analysis draft. We would like to make one more update before Berlin, so your comments and feedback are very welcome. > > Regards, > > Juan Carlos et al. > > -----Original Message----- > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:07 AM > To: Carlos J. Bernardos; H Anthony Chan; Zuniga, Juan Carlos; Anthony Chan; Dapeng Liu; Zuniga, Juan Carlos; Pierrick Seite > Subject: New Version Notification fordraft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Dapeng Liu and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Filename: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis > Revision: 01 > Title: Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices and gap analysis > Creation date: 2013-06-17 > Group: dmm > Number of pages: 21 > URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt > Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis > Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 > Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 > > Abstract: > The present document analyses deplyment practices of existing > mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment. > It also identifies some limitations compared to the expected > functionality of a fully distributed mobility management system. The > comparison is made taking into account the identified DMM > requirements. > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 14:06:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC8311E80D9 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:06:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FP5HT7i28wAL for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-x22c.google.com (mail-bk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CADAB11E80D5 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id r7so513359bkg.17 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:06:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=kcU++rp2KDP3vMLg00+gFrmT47JnC0YsLxh7t1I+yXI=; b=WI+zI64uQ32EWf5bAcF3reDP049VMwNILieGqH+AaHzRw3UxGCg1qrj7jSg1Ec/gib n/PQLRSKSWunnl1mQZX1HkEqRPMJZB07AAHHeHi0+HC3PuiggUVa8En+e9gTe2RH9uBe g0XUMQBg1ng5fAwucGgTLYxaNdtuL6ovtbWAeobsVqtfVM+ImViEEv2Bxq9OCskGx1vb O8dnIxnxs5EXJnEGWC2JDOzhS631MbWFkSgj4SUkw4hVlojnzV1DGE+8M/6MnHPGDgB+ MmScILWRKdDVRiTj7NzZxb8FhmSnnSEpty78mlL7HZw/2O2rvUStBzKCFDe2ipFcTPut ErGQ== X-Received: by 10.204.236.136 with SMTP id kk8mr1403070bkb.151.1372367196879; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:06:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:29e3:eb80:897d:8b3e? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:29e3:eb80:897d:8b3e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hn4sm2338873bkc.2.2013.06.27.14.06.33 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:06:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Jouni Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:06:33 +0300 References: <20130627201845.12037.66865.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: dmm@ietf.org Message-Id: <095C8FDD-8D54-4C78-AF00-FD527856EAC8@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Subject: [DMM] Fwd: dmm - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 87 X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:06:41 -0000 FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: "\"IETF Secretariat\"" > Subject: dmm - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 87 > Date: June 27, 2013 11:18:45 PM GMT+03:00 > To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com > Cc: dmm-ads@tools.ietf.org, julien.ietf@gmail.com, = jouni.nospam@gmail.com, amorris@amsl.com >=20 > Dear Jouni Korhonen, >=20 > The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. > Below is the scheduled session information followed by > the original request.=20 >=20 > dmm Session 1 (2:00:00) > Thursday, Morning Session I 0900-1020 > Room Name: Charlottenburg 1 > --------------------------------------------- >=20 >=20 >=20 > Request Information: >=20 >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- > Working Group Name:=20 > Area Name:=20 > Session Requester:=20 >=20 > Number of Sessions: 1 > Length of Session(s): 2 Hours > Number of Attendees: 50 > Conflicts to Avoid:=20 > First Priority: dime radext intarea v6ops > Second Priority: 6man mif multimob homenet netext > Third Priority: 6lowpan hip lisp lwig savi core softwire sunset4 >=20 >=20 > Special Requests: >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- >=20 From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 14:34:56 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82DF21F9A18 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:34:56 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k7xlzvfvVgRW for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:34:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22d.google.com (mail-lb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7301421F9A1C for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:34:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id v1so1289738lbd.4 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:34:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=P3kEF9LaMvBKX2pQBvO+s0KyoN2zJIesdhdT38dyHxo=; b=qDFC2nFw01VyHxNWbgFx6iHlFxJqRJGbr5uLhtzk0tJywD8tvfh9hnm41qGCrXyY9C 472i9vJrFvp09QLagr9/yG1X2oif75AMv0MJz/im40L0uKOwlffjDKDMmSiCTskWjPFk ExLmsmXe49kqYuSpT7JPnHGEAqAj1GhpN1iKAO4Y7/mU2EPFIpyPjKDIv/vWlZ2zNZPQ gc3VhakbCwFY87Zw5swUz+bQcThiGpQhCmYYXhaz7h+Bh4yNecq03XVUpyXM8/rc7DJ6 w8eq9w/SkAkpN0i5JoTek0KRN49W+ld+BHPOdNvENJt0NPWRai66MqVXAIv3xniXokqP +j3w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.13.199 with SMTP id j7mr7441582lbc.25.1372455289921; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.186.104 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:34:49 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: dmm@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3cb9e06a5f004e03da64d Subject: [DMM] Last Call comment on dmm requirements X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:34:57 -0000 --001a11c3cb9e06a5f004e03da64d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Add this requirement: R. XX. In network based dmm solutions, the mobile node MUST not be modified. No changes on the mobile node behavior can be allowed. Regards, Behcet --001a11c3cb9e06a5f004e03da64d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Add this requirement:

R. XX. In network based dmm solutions, the mobile node MUST not be modified. No changes on the mobile node behavior can be allowed.

Regards,

Behcet

--001a11c3cb9e06a5f004e03da64d-- From alper.yegin@yegin.org Sat Jun 29 04:33:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A0721F9FDF for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 04:33:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.853 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.744, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cVkh4MeXwCjU for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 04:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093C521F9FE1 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 04:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.49] (88.247.135.202.static.ttnet.com.tr [88.247.135.202]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LrNcy-1U7QXS0k0q-013Rm7; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:32:57 -0400 From: Alper Yegin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B03B45CE-7E94-4CDA-BEC5-2A4F5F88601F" Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 14:32:52 +0300 Message-Id: To: dmm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:oplWDV168KAgrD7NZdIOcOMIe8SdlIVyW+Af5Nsf4RL OsTNh0X2RKMmt31QFQtNF/RZpdb/2xbhs/aNg/WQ7Xpc/dcBHy RMgZNc7iZFI/Equ6u07e5W1LVSFWLAspoEBiJpAgcfPX7l4fg3 fA2MwVFXwZZ/Pv7YwunPWtXuFijNuGiq/6G5ECkXHQPhgm1RFj enGmmB304Az+v9ynlqhG9kUbkj7g8cLkxMH53fxHNhPCg0/26p J2sUv8O3vNFxRMYoCKFKDSvIPPyrGStNWOct0OH3VOoXFSF1R9 nElk3iFlVlc5VscLJI8faVFK/zMXmU9UzWZQbHG/gV3MJxfW0t q3TnJ7SY3AHja8OX2dI/SZDwSosxbHNdrbqK5WmMDcD7qcNYKn SpaLAKY8gRlEw== Subject: [DMM] Comments on dmm-requirements X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:33:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B03B45CE-7E94-4CDA-BEC5-2A4F5F88601F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello, Here I have a comment on the DMM requirements document. 6. Security Considerations Distributed mobility management (DMM) requires two kinds of security considerations. The first consideration is on access network security required between the mobile host/router and the access network deploying DMM. It allows only a legitimate mobile host/ router to use DMM. The second consideration is on end-to-end security required between nodes that participate in the DMM protocol. It protects the DMM signaling messages. I'm not sure I understand this. Is the first one about "access network = security"?=20 Like ensuring only the authorized nodes can attach to the access = network, and once they attach their traffic can be origin authenticated, = replay and integrity protected?=20 If so, that's not related to DMM. In fact, one could even claim that nodes attached to unsecure network, = e.g., open WiFi, should also be able to use DMM. It is necessary to provide sufficient defense against possible security attacks, or to adopt existing security mechanisms and protocols to provide sufficient security protections. For instance, EAP-based authentication can be used for access network security, while IPsec can be used for end-to-end security. Again, the former is about access network security, and the latter is = about end-to-end communication security. None of these are related to = "DMM security." Btw, I'd have expected this section to state just this: "Security = considerations related to the DMM are described in section 5.6." Alper --Apple-Mail=_B03B45CE-7E94-4CDA-BEC5-2A4F5F88601F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii