Subject: [dhcwg] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:07:36 -0400

All,
     I have completed my AD Evaluation of
draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier as a part of the publication
process.  This is a well-written document and I only have a few
comments/questions on it.  Once these are resolved, the document can
continue through the publication process...

* This document references RFC 6021, but 6021 has been obsoleted by 6991.

* Section 4.3.1 says that the SSID MUST be provided if the access
technology is 802.11.  However, it is not as strict when the access
technology is 3GPP or 3GPP2.  Should those access technologies also use
MUST-level requirements on the value?  Would it be useful to identify
the acceptable values in this option for all access technologies listed
here?

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml#mobility-parameters-10

* Section 4.4.1 (and 5.3.1) provide an option for conveying the
Operator's Vendor ID.  Where does this Vendor ID come from?  Is there a
stable reference for Vendor IDs in this context?

* Section 4.4.2 (and 5.3.2) provide the Realm, but there is no
discussion of what Realm means.  Adding some context would be useful.

* Given the Motivation and Security Considerations sections, is there
really a deployment model where these options should be inserted by the
DHCP client?  It seems to me that the client really isn't in a position
to know if/when this option should be included in its DHCP message.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:05:04 +0000

Hi Brian:

Thanks for review.

Regarding section 4.4.1 & 5.3.2, the Vendor ID is defined in terminology section 3:

Vendor ID - The Vendor ID is the SMI Network Management Private Enterprise
      Code of the IANA-maintained Private Enterprise Numbers registry
      [SMI<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-06#ref-SMI>].

Not sure if that is suffient or whether work at least adding reference back to Section 3 or just remove from there and place info in the two sections.

I will let the others comment on the other issues, though I agree that having client provide this information is pretty useless.

- Bernie (from iPad)

On Apr 13, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

All,

Regards,
Brian

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:00:19 -0400

Hi Bernie,

On 4/13/15 12:05 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Vendor ID - The Vendor ID is the SMI Network Management Private
> Enterprise Code of the IANA-maintained Private Enterprise Numbers
> registry 
>  Not sure if that is suffient or whether work at least adding
> reference back to Section 3 or just remove from there and place info
> in the two sections.

Not sure how I missed that in Section 3.  Maybe a simple reference like
"(as described in Section 3)" will help readers.

Regards,
Brian

> 
> I will let the others comment on the other issues, though I agree
> that having client provide this information is pretty useless.
> 
> - Bernie (from iPad)
> 
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Brian Haberman
> <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> All, I have completed my AD Evaluation of 
> draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier as a part of the
> publication process.  This is a well-written document and I only have
> a few comments/questions on it.  Once these are resolved, the
> document can continue through the publication process...
> 
> technology is 3GPP or 3GPP2.  Should those access technologies also
> use MUST-level requirements on the value?  Would it be useful to
> identify the acceptable values in this option for all access
> technologies listed here?
> 
> Operator's Vendor ID.  Where does this Vendor ID come from?  Is there
> a stable reference for Vendor IDs in this context?
> 
> * Given the Motivation and Security Considerations sections, is
> there really a deployment model where these options should be
> inserted by the DHCP client?  It seems to me that the client really
> isn't in a position to know if/when this option should be included in
> its DHCP message.
> 
> Regards, Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list