Subject: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 21:55:59 -0500

This was a very dense read, and I found only a few things to ask about, and
half of those are nits.

Nice work.

Please take a look at my evaluation comments, and let me know how you'd
like to proceed.

Thanks, as always.

Spencer

Nit, but it's in the Abstract ...

   This document specifies a set Differentiated
   Services Code Point (DSCP) to IEEE 802.11 User Priority (UP) mappings

should this be "... set of Differentiated Services Code Point ..."?

I'm looking at this text,

   There is also a recommendation from the Global System for Mobile
   Communications Association (GSMA), specifically their Mapping Quality
   of Service (QoS) Procedures of Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and WLAN
   [RFC7561] specification.  This GSMA specification was developed
   without reference to existing IETF specifications for various
   services, referenced in Section 1.1.

and I'm not quite sure how an IETF-stream Informational RFC produced by a
working group becomes "a recommendation from GSMA" and "a GSMA
specification". I recognize the names of the RFC 7561 authors, and I see
the connection, but I would have thought that the reference would have been
to something more obviously tied to GSMA. Is there any reference that could
be cited, to help people who didn't sit two desks away from one of the
authors see the connection?

In this text,

   This document assumes and RECOMMENDS that all wireless access points
   (as the bridges between wired-and-wireless networks) support the
   ability to:

is "bridges" the right word here? I would read that as saying that wireless
access points are a layer two-layer two bridge. If you have readers who are
familiar with IEEE 802.1 bridging, they may be more confused than I was.

A nit - "unusued" -> "unused"

I really appreciate the inclusion of Section 6, as an overview of IEEE
802.11 QoS. I'd suggest that this not be titled as "Appendix" - which
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc7322.txt.pdf doesn't think is part
of an RFC body, so at a minimum they would move it behind the security
considerations, but I'd be OK if you left it as a normal Section in the
body. Alternatively, if you're happier with this material as an Appendix,
it's probably better to slide it to the back material.

A nit - "oftheir" -> "of their"

I'm looking at the last paragraph of the Security Considerations, and I'm
thinking that

   Finally, it should be noted that the recommendations put forward in
   this document are not intended to address all attack vectors
   leveraging QoS marking abuse.  Mechanisms that may further help
   mitigate security risks include strong device- and/or user-
   authentication, access-control, rate limiting, control-plane
   policing, encryption and other techniques; however, the
   implementation recommendations for such mechanisms are beyond the
   scope of this document to address in detail.  Suffice it to say that
   the security of the devices and networks implementing QoS, including
   QoS mapping between wired and wireless networks, SHOULD be considered
   in actual deployments.

is missing the (perhaps obvious) point that the mechanisms you list under
"further help" aren't specific to wireless networks, but should be
considered for any network that implements QoS. That might be covered in
the last sentence, but that's not what I'm getting out of the last sentence.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 21:42:42 -0700

On Sep 12, 2017, at 7:55 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> and I'm not quite sure how an IETF-stream Informational RFC produced by a working group becomes "a recommendation from GSMA" and "a GSMA specification". I recognize the names of the RFC 7561 authors, and I see the connection, but I would have thought that the reference would have been to something more obviously tied to GSMA. Is there any reference that could be cited, to help people who didn't sit two desks away from one of the authors see the connection?

You might take a look at RFC 7561 section 4.2 and reference [6]. It says that it mandates GSMA-specified DSCP mappings.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:42:44 -0500

Hi, Fred,

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > and I'm not quite sure how an IETF-stream Informational RFC produced by
> a working group becomes "a recommendation from GSMA" and "a GSMA
> You might take a look at RFC 7561 section 4.2 and reference [6]. It says
> that it mandates GSMA-specified DSCP mappings.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm actually asking a stupider question than you
think.

I saw the reference to [6] in RFC 7561, but I was scanning for "GSMA", and
the only occurrence to that string that I saw was in the Informative
References section.

   [6]  3GPP, "Guidelines for IPX Provider networks (Previously
        Inter-Service Provider IP Backbone Guidelines)", GSMA Official
        Document IR.34 v11.0, November 2014,
        <http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/
        IR.34-v11.0.pdf>.

If a reader is persistent enough to click through the references in an RFC
that's listed as a reference, the reader can figure this out, but it isn't
obvious.

So I think I'm asking if you can add [6] as a reference in your draft,
perhaps pointing to

   There is also a recommendation from the Global System for Mobile
   Communications Association (GSMA),

You'll know best where to point it, of course, but I'd like to point to the
actual GSMA recommendation if we're going to say

   This GSMA specification was developed
    without reference to existing IETF specifications for various
    services, referenced in Section 1.1.

which seemed to refer back to *RFC 7561* as the GSMA recommendation, which
is what confused me in the first place :-)

Spencer, who is noting with bemusement that neither TSV AD balloted on RFC
7561 when it was approved ... how did we miss THAT one???

---

From: "Tim Szigeti (szigeti)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 00:56:10 +0000

Hi Spencer,

Thank you very much for giving this document a thorough read. We really appreciate your feedback and suggestions, all of which have been implemented in the latest version (v08) just posted.

Cheers,

-tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:56 PM
> To: David Black
> Cc: David L. Black; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07
> 
> specification". I recognize the names of the RFC 7561 authors, and I see the
> connection, but I would have thought that the reference would have been to
> something more obviously tied to GSMA. Is there any reference that could
> I really appreciate the inclusion of Section 6, as an overview of IEEE 802.11
> QoS. I'd suggest that this not be titled as "Appendix" - which
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc7322.txt.pdf doesn't think is part of
> an RFC body, so at a minimum they would move it behind the security
> considerations, but I'd be OK if you left it as a normal Section in the body.
> Alternatively, if you're happier with this material as an Appendix, it's probably
> better to slide it to the back material.
> 
> "further help" aren't specific to wireless networks, but should be considered
> for any network that implements QoS. That might be covered in the last
> sentence, but that's not what I'm getting out of the last sentence.

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:26:36 +0000

The text that Spencer quoted brings up something else ... I'd suggest some editorial rephrasing of at least the words "SHOULD be considered" in:

   Suffice it to say that
    the security of the devices and networks implementing QoS, including
    QoS mapping between wired and wireless networks, SHOULD be
   considered in actual deployments.

before someone on the IESG notes the relevance of Section 2 of RFC 6919  to that text: 
	https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919#section-2
and notices the publication date of RFC 6919 :-) :-).

Thanks, --David

> From: Tim Szigeti (szigeti) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 8:56 PM
> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>; Black, David
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Black, David <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-tsvwg-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07
> 
> Hi Spencer,
> 
> Thank you very much for giving this document a thorough read. We really
> appreciate your feedback and suggestions, all of which have been
> implemented in the latest version (v08) just posted.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -tim
> 
> a
> of
> considered

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:24:00 -0500

Dear All,

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Black, David <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The text that Spencer quoted brings up something else ... I'd suggest some
> editorial rephrasing of at least the words "SHOULD be considered" in:
>
>    Suffice it to say that

I'm good to go with v08, but please let me know if anything will change in
response to David's previous e-mail in this thread, so we don't start Last
Call with comments that should be addressed.

Thanks,

Spencer

> 802.11
> > > Alternatively, if you're happier with this material as an Appendix,
> it's
> > probably

---

From: "Tim Szigeti (szigeti)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 04:18:54 +0000

Hi Spencer,

I made the minor change requested; now the sentence avoids the loaded term ‘should consider’.

Suffice it to say that the security of the devices and networks implementing QoS, including QoS mapping between wired and wireless networks, merits consideration in actual deployments.

(Thanks David for bringing this to our attention).

With that done, I think we’re ready for Last Call.

Thanks,

-tim

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:24 PM
To: Black, David
Cc: Tim Szigeti (szigeti); [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07

Dear All,

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Black, David <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
The text that Spencer quoted brings up something else ... I'd suggest some editorial rephrasing of at least the words "SHOULD be considered" in:

   Suffice it to say that

Thanks, --David

> From: Tim Szigeti (szigeti) [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>]
> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Black, David
> <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
> Cc: Black, David <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; draft-ietf-tsvwg-
> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

I'm good to go with v08, but please let me know if anything will change in response to David's previous e-mail in this thread, so we don't start Last Call with comments that should be addressed.

Thanks,

Spencer

> > From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>]
> > Cc: David L. Black; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:46:21 -0500

Dear David the Document Shepherd,

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Tim Szigeti (szigeti) <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Suffice it to say that the security of the devices and networks
> implementing QoS, including QoS mapping between wired and wireless
> networks, merits consideration in actual deployments.
>
>
>

Ready for me to pull the trigger?

Spencer

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 18:08:36 +0000

> Ready for me to pull the trigger?

Yes, please do, Thanks, --David

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 6:46 PM
To: Tim Szigeti (szigeti) <[email-masked]>
Cc: Black, David <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Tim Szigeti (szigeti) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi Spencer,

Spencer