eap Mailing List: RE: Updated version of EAP-based network discovery draft

[Adrangi, Farid (farid.adrangi]

Hello Ruffino,
Thanks for your comments. Please see my responses below.
BR,
Farid


> I've read through the last version of the draft and it seems 
> to me very clear, in the overall. I've some comments 
> regarding the "Implementation considerations" section (Sec. 
> 4), though I realize this is not intended to be a 
> "recommendations" section...
> 
> 1) (editorial) It states:
> "However, delivery mechanism options 1 and 2 are recommended 
> as they are backward-compatible with the currently-deployed APs."
> 
> Do you mean here method 2 and 3 ? Method 1 is actually not 
> backward compatible.
> 
Yes, you are right.  I reversed the order of the options in the this update and 
forgot to update the numbers here!

> 2) In "- When Option 3 is used " bullet:
> 
> 2a) "if the RADIUS proxy/server still cannot route the RADIUS 
> packet the next AAA hop based on the realm portion of the NAI, "
> 
> Maybe I'm confusing here, but in step 6. it states that the 
> wireless client either chooses one of the MNs, or it does not 
> connect to the access network. So, why the RADIUS 
> proxy/server could not route the RADIUS packet ? 
> 

Because the user may still send an undecorated NAI to AAA proxy.

> 2b) "then it MAY route the packet based on its local routing 
> policy, or it MAY discard the packet."
> 
> If the mediating network chosen by the user is not available, 
> then the authentication request SHOULD (and maybe MUST) not 
> be forwarded. This because wireless clients, choosing a 
> preferred network, implicitly indicate that they don't want 
> any other network to route their request. If the 
> authentication completed, the wireless client would not be 
> able to know that the chosen network is not available.
> So I propose to change the statement in the following way : 
> ", then it SHOULD discard the packet."

I see your point and reasoning here -- you are right.  Actually, here "MUST" 
seems to be more appropriate than "SHOULD" - no?
> 
> Best regards,
> Simone
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eap-admin [at] frascone.com 
> [mailto:eap-admin [at] frascone.com] On Behalf Of
> > Adrangi, Farid
> 
> > Sent: giovedì 10 giugno 2004 22.39
> > To: aboba [at] internaut.com; jari.arkko [at] piuha.net; eap [at] 
> > frascone.com
> > Subject: [eap] Updated version of EAP-based network discovery draft
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Bernard & Jari
> > 
> > Thanks again for your review and comments.  I have made an 
> intermediary
> > update of the draft based on your comments / feedback - the 
> draft can be
> > found in
> > 
> http://mng.ctgisp.com/IETF/EAP/Network%20Selection/draft-adran
gi-eap-net
> work-discovery-011.txt.
> 
> 
> On issues (pointed out by Bernard) with the "security considerations"
> section, I made some clarification changes:
> 
> - Made some clarifications on the information type and what is meant by
> a "hint"
> - Removed the SSID analogy
> - The "implementation considerations" section contains a text describing
> on what conditions an implementation should specify a mediating network
> for the AAA routing
> 
> 


Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

====================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to 
MailAdmin [at] tilab.com. Thank you
====================================================================