Subject: RE: RE: draft-ietf-pana-usage-scenarios-00.txt

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:23:30 +0100

> Who says that the DI is *access dependent*? 

=> Not me !

It MAY be, 
  > true, but it does not
  > have to be. We currently only say that the DI MAY be 
  > carried in PANA so it
  > is not mandatory for a solution to do it. We also say that 
  > the DI is a kind
  > of handle that access control can use to authorize some 
  > traffic. The DI
  > could be as simple as an IP address or a link layer port 
  > number if such
  > thing is used in a given scenario but it could potentially 
  > be other things
  > as has been discussed.

=> Phew... that's a relief. 
FWIW I think we MUST specify who is being 
authenticated/authorised. It is not enough to
reserve a field in the protocol and say 'here
you can carry whatever you like'. 
Access independence is crucial here, so there is
nothing wrong in saying that the DI (if you want to
call it that) 'MUST NOT be access dependant' like 
a MAC address for a certain link layer ...etc.
You can have options to carry additional
system dependant parameters (for tracking stolen
devices perhaps) but they should be in addition
to the generic identifier.

Hesham