Network Discovery and Selection Problem
draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Chris Newman |
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2007-11-26
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2007-11-19
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2007-11-19
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2007-11-19
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2007-11-19
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2007-11-19
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2007-11-19
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
2007-11-16
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-09.txt |
2007-11-16
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
2007-11-16
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2007-11-15
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2007-11-15
|
09 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Chris Newman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Chris Newman |
2007-11-15
|
09 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lisa Dusseault has been changed to Undefined from Yes by Lisa Dusseault |
2007-11-15
|
09 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2007-11-14
|
09 | (System) | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by system |
2007-11-14
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sam Weiler. |
2007-11-12
|
09 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sam Hartman |
2007-11-02
|
09 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-11-01 |
2007-11-01
|
09 | Sam Hartman | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Sam Hartman |
2007-11-01
|
09 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2007-11-01
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] This discuss supports and expands Chris Newman's discuss with respect to credential selection and use. The introduction begins by noting current network access … [Ballot discuss] This discuss supports and expands Chris Newman's discuss with respect to credential selection and use. The introduction begins by noting current network access clients are typically preconfigured with access networks and corresponding identities and credentials. The document devotes a great deal of energy to the implications of network discovery on the "identity selection problem". However, credential selection is viewed as simply another aspect of identity selection, and is treated far less rigorously. I beleive that new security issues with respect to credentials are introduced by the move away from preconfigured access networks, and need to be discussed in more detail. Given the difficulties in UI design that Chris has already highlighted, I would say that some credential types and authentication methods used with preconfigured access networks will be inappropriate for use when network discovery is employed. Specifically, weaker credentials and mechanisms that reveal something about the credential would seem to be a bad idea. I believe that additional material in the body (either in 2.2 or in a new subsection 2.x) is needed, as well as an expansion of the security considerations section. |
2007-11-01
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2007-11-01
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Amy Vezza |
2007-11-01
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] 1. s/IEEE 802.1ab/IEEE 802.1AB/ 2. I do not believe that this is critical to the point of being a blocking issue in this … [Ballot comment] 1. s/IEEE 802.1ab/IEEE 802.1AB/ 2. I do not believe that this is critical to the point of being a blocking issue in this document, but I need to observe that I would have expected such a comprehensive document to include operational and manageability considerations. Specifically I would have expected the document to mention wheter from an operational point of view there is a need for a network device to expose through a management interface information like the available network discovery capabilities, or the status of discovery and selection of points of attachments. |
2007-11-01
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2007-11-01
|
09 | Chris Newman | [Ballot discuss] I find the security considerations section rather weak on this document. Probably the most important security consideration that comes to mind related to … [Ballot discuss] I find the security considerations section rather weak on this document. Probably the most important security consideration that comes to mind related to this problem is the ability to construct a client/device user interface that makes it unlikely a user will expose reusable or otherwise easy-to-compromise credentials to the wrong network. I would like to discuss this during the IESG call, although it's likely I'll clear this discuss during the call unless others on the IESG feel the same way. |
2007-11-01
|
09 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2007-10-31
|
09 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2007-10-31
|
09 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2007-10-31
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] From Gen-ART Review by David Black. Section 2.3.2, 2nd paragraph: s/Groups 1 and 3 both/Groups 1 and 2 both/ |
2007-10-31
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2007-10-31
|
09 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-10-31
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2007-10-30
|
09 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2007-10-30
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2007-10-29
|
09 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mark Townsley |
2007-10-29
|
09 | Mark Townsley | Ballot has been issued by Mark Townsley |
2007-10-29
|
09 | Mark Townsley | Created "Approve" ballot |
2007-10-25
|
09 | Mark Townsley | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-11-01 by Mark Townsley |
2007-10-22
|
09 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2007-10-18
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2007-10-09
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler |
2007-10-09
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler |
2007-10-08
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2007-10-08
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2007-10-08
|
09 | Mark Townsley | Last Call was requested by Mark Townsley |
2007-10-08
|
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2007-10-08
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2007-10-08
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2007-10-08
|
09 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Mark Townsley |
2007-10-08
|
09 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Mark Townsley |
2007-08-15
|
09 | Jari Arkko | Mark needs to handle this as I am a co-author. |
2007-08-15
|
09 | Jari Arkko | Responsible AD has been changed to Mark Townsley from Jari Arkko |
2007-08-15
|
09 | Jari Arkko | State Change Notice email list have been change to eap-chairs@tools.ietf.org,draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem@tools.ietf.org from eap-chairs@tools.ietf.org |
2007-07-30
|
09 | Dinara Suleymanova | PROTO Write-up (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, … PROTO Write-up (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Glen Zorn is the document shepherd for this document and has personally reviewed the document and believes that it is ready to be forwarded to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? They document has received adequate review from both working group and non WG members. The Document Shepherd has no concerns with respect to the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. The Document Shepherd is unaware of any specific concerns or issues with the document. No IPR disclosures related to draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem have been submitted. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The document represents a reasonably strong consensus with the active members of the working group in favor of the document moving forward. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Yes. Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? No. If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? No. If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has split references with no downward or dependent references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA Considerations section exists only to say that no IANA actions are required. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Not applicable (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary When multiple access networks are available, users may have difficulty in selecting which network to connect to, and how to authenticate with that network. This document defines the network discovery and selection problem, dividing it into multiple sub-problems. Some constraints on potential solutions are outlined, and the limitations of several solutions (including existing ones) are discussed. Working Group Summary The document represents rough consensus of the working group. Document Quality This document has been reviewed extensively and the Document Shepherd belives it to be of high quality. Personnel Glen Zorn is the document shepherd. The responsible Area Director is Mark Townsley. |
2007-07-30
|
09 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
2007-06-05
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-08.txt |
2007-05-21
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-07.txt |
2007-03-08
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-06.txt |
2006-10-25
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-05.txt |
2006-05-26
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-04.txt |
2005-10-25
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-03.txt |
2004-10-27
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-02.txt |
2004-07-19
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-01.txt |
2004-01-13
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-00.txt |