Hi Charlie,
I have not yet seen a response to this review. Do you think you will be able to get to this in the next day or two? The document is on the February 16 2017 telechat and I would like to see resolution to these issues in time for the other ADs to ballot.
Thanks
Suresh
On 2/2/17, 1:10 AM, "Charlie Perkins" <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Sri,
The review was indeed super. I'll respond sometime in the next few days.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 2/1/2017 9:09 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
> Thank you Dale for a great review.
>
>
> Charlie/Authors - Can you please respond to Dale and address these
> comments.
>
>
> Regards
> Sri
>
>
> On 1/31/17, 11:34 AM, "dmm on behalf of Dale Worley" <dmm-bounces@xxxxxxxx
> on behalf of worley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Reviewer: Dale Worley
>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04
>> Reviewer: Dale R. Worley
>> Review Date: 31 Jan 2017
>> IETF LC End Date: 2 Feb 2017
>> IESG Telechat date: 16 Feb 2017
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> This draft is on the right track but has open issues,
>> described
>> in the review.
>>
>> Technical issues:
>>
>> 1. The Introduction states
>>
>> Other types of identifiers are in
>> common use, and even referenced in RFC 4283.
>>
>> For the reader's sanity, some sort of accounting needs to be made of
>> these "other types of identifiers", especially because each type of
>> identifier needs an identifier type number. The text in 4283 is
>>
>> Some examples of identifiers
>> include Network Access Identifier (NAI), Fully Qualified Domain
>> Name
>> (FQDN), International Mobile Station Identifier (IMSI), and Mobile
>> Subscriber Number (MSISDN).
>>
>> Are there any other types "in common use"?
>>
>> - NAI (type 1) is defined by 4283.
>> - Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) seems not to be specified
>> - International Mobile Station Identifier (IMSI) (type 3) is defined
>> in
>> this draft
>> - Mobile Subscriber Number (MSISDN) seems not to be specified
>>
>> 2. Is it intended to have an IMEI identifier type? The introduction
>> mentions an IMEI type, but there is no specification for it, nor is
>> there an identifier type number assigned for it.
>>
>> ... types for IMSI
>> [ThreeGPP-IDS], P-TMSI [ThreeGPP-IDS], IMEI [ThreeGPP-IDS], and
>> GUTI
>> [ThreeGPP-IDS].
>>
>> Initially I suspected it was it was present in an earlier revision
>> and
>> then later deleted without this reference being updated. But all
>> versions of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids and its predecessor
>> draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids mention IMEI in this way as one
>> identifier
>> type, but none specify it in any way. The only discussion I can find
>> on the DMM mailing list of IMEI is:
>>
>>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/pNmtaq6-JOQ4RuXy_D7Zc2JgvYk/?qid
>> =d29575f767ce67a1e67a7767008ee6af
>>
>> From: Marco Liebsch <Marco.Liebsch@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: DMM
>> Date: Wed, 10 September 2014 13:29 UTC
>> Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
>>
>> It seems the MNID is somehow overloaded to carry both,
>> node-specific
>> IDs, e.g. MAC, as well as subscriber IDs, which is the IMSI.
>> There may be value in adding the IMEI to the list of possible
>> types of
>> node-specific IDs.
>>
>> Either the presence of IMEI in this list is a simple mistake that has
>> persisted in all versions of the draft, or specifying IMEI has always
>> been intended but has always been overlooked.
>>
>> 3. The definition of identifier types for both EUI-48 and EUI-64
>> suggests that it might be desirable to define an identifier type for
>> arbitrary hardware (link-level) addresses. It seems that the natural
>> differentiator for that purpose is the "hardware type" used in ARP,
>> so
>> a EUI-48 address would be represented as
>>
>> MN identifier type (one octet) 5 (say)
>> hardware type (two octets) 1
>> EUI-48 (six octets)
>>
>> and an EUI-64 similarly, with hardware type 27.
>>
>> Although with only two subtypes in common use, generalizing this
>> might
>> not be worth the effort.
>>
>> 4. Several of the identifier types can be represented as URNs:
>>
>> - IMEI can be represented as a URN as urn:gsma:imei:...
>> - all of the RFID types have a URN representation (called the
>> "pure-identity URI" in the RFID specifications), which starts
>> urn:epc:id:...
>>
>> Since all URN types are ensured of being unique and persistent, it
>> seems that we could define a MNID type for URNs generally, and then
>> any RFID URI or an IMEI (as a URN) could be used as a value of that
>> type.
>>
>> If this idea is adopted, it seems that the other 3GPP types (IMSI,
>> P-TMSI, and GUTI) should be given defined encodings as URNs in new
>> sub-namespaces of the "gsma" URN namespace, to parallel the encoding
>> of IMEIs defined in RFC 7254.
>>
>> This consolidation could be significantly beneficial. It allows MNID
>> to use any URN scheme as an identifier. It reduces the three
>> different RFID representations to one. It incorporates any future
>> expansion of RFID schemes (because all schemes will have a
>> pure-identity URN representation). A disadvantage is that the URN
>> encodings are long, but the security considerations section states
>> that MNIDs are used only on the first registration at the home agent,
>> so there isn't much need for brevity.
>>
>> Similarly, this approach incorporates any future expansion of mobile
>> identifiers that GSMA decides to define, as long as GSMA provides a
>> URN representation for it.
>>
>> The most significant disadvantage is that some URN schemes allow
>> several character strings to "mean" the same URN. In most URN
>> schemes, the allowed variation is limited to the case of letters, and
>> the common convention is to always use lower-case when there is a
>> choice, leading to a unique conventional canonical form for the URN.
>>
>> 5. Regarding the encoding of a string of digits into octets, it is
>> stated that "The last digit MUST be zero padded, if needed, for full
>> octet size." This seems very unwise unless there is a 3GPP decree
>> that if a zero is appended to a valid IMSI, the resulting string is
>> never a valid IMSI. Instead, I would specify that padding is by
>> filling the low-order 4 bits of the final octet with 0xF. That
>> ensures that the encoding can be uniquely decoded into an IMSI.
>>
>> 6. There are four types of DUID specified, each with a distinct MNID
>> value. However, DUIDs contain an initial two-octet type field which
>> distinguishes the various types of DUID, so providing them with
>> distinct MNID values is redundant.
>>
>> Distinguishing the types and allowing only four of them to be used as
>> MNIDs seems to be contrary to the philosophy of DUID construction
>> (RFC
>> 3315 section 9):
>>
>> Clients and servers MUST treat DUIDs as opaque values and MUST
>> only
>> compare DUIDs for equality. Clients and servers MUST NOT in any
>> other way interpret DUIDs. Clients and servers MUST NOT restrict
>> DUIDs to the types defined in this document, as additional DUID
>> types
>> may be defined in the future.
>>
>> Of course, MNID isn't a DHCP operation, so it isn't subject to those
>> requirements, but I expect that devices will use the same DUID for
>> both mobile identification, and we don't want mobile identification
>> to
>> restrict future developments of DHCP.
>>
>> I think this specification must treat DUIDs as opaque and use only
>> one
>> MNID type that allows all types of DUIDs as values.
>>
>> Editorial issues:
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> Additional Identifier Types are proposed for use with the Mobile
>> Node
>> Identifier Option for IPv6 (RFC 4283).
>>
>> s/proposed/defined/
>> This document will define the new types (once it is approved)!
>>
>> 1. Introduction
>>
>> ... types for IMSI
>> [ThreeGPP-IDS], P-TMSI [ThreeGPP-IDS], IMEI [ThreeGPP-IDS], and
>> GUTI
>> [ThreeGPP-IDS].
>>
>> There is no description of P-TMSI identifiers, although it is
>> assigned
>> identifier type 4.
>>
>> There is no description of GUTI identifiers, although it is assigned
>> identifier type 7.
>>
>> 3. New Mobile Node Identifier Types
>>
>> The following types of identifiers are commonly used to identify
>> mobile nodes. For each type, references are provided with full
>> details on the format of the type of identifier.
>>
>> The Tag Data standard promoted by Electronic Product Code(TM)
>> (abbreviated EPC) supports several encoding systems or schemes
>> including
>>
>> o RFID-GID (Global Identifier),
>> o RFID-SGTIN (Serialized Global Trade Item Number),
>> o RFID-SSCC (Serial Shipping Container),
>> o RFID-SGLN (Global Location Number),
>> o RFID-GRAI (Global Returnable Asset Identifier),
>> o RFID-DOD (Department of Defense ID), and
>> o RFID-GIAI (Global Individual Asset Identifier).
>>
>> For each RFID scheme except GID, there are two variations: a
>> 64-bit
>> scheme (for example, SGLN-64) and a 96-bit scheme (SGLN-96). GID
>> has
>> only a 96-bit scheme. Within each scheme, an EPC identifier can
>> be
>> represented in a binary form or other forms such as URI.
>>
>> The following list includes the above RFID types as well as
>> various
>> other common identifiers and several different types of DUIDs.
>>
>> The organization of the text here seems to be poor -- section 3
>> enumerates the new identifier types, but much of the text at the
>> beginning of the section is about the RFID-EPC set of types. It
>> seems
>> like a better organization is to use just paragraph 1 followed by
>> table 1, and move paragraphs 2-5 into section 4.9.
>>
>> The Tag Data standard promoted by Electronic Product Code(TM)
>> (abbreviated EPC) supports several encoding systems or schemes
>> including
>>
>> The text is using "Tag Data", "EPC", and "RFID" in a way that is
>> intertwined but not explained. I can see that it might be useful to
>> use all of the terms if they commonly used in the field (don't forget
>> to make them keywords for the RFC!), but you need to explain their
>> connection and distinction to the reader or make it clear that the
>> reader does not need to understand the differences among the terms.
>> E.g., this formulation ties all three terms together
>>
>> The Tag Data standard promoted by Electronic Product Code(TM)
>> (abbreviated EPC) supports several encoding systems or schemes
>> which are commonly used in RFID (radio-frequency identification)
>> applications, including
>>
>> --
>>
>> For each RFID scheme except GID, there are two variations: a
>> 64-bit
>> scheme (for example, SGLN-64) and a 96-bit scheme (SGLN-96). GID
>> has
>> only a 96-bit scheme. Within each scheme, an EPC identifier can
>> be
>> represented in a binary form or other forms such as URI.
>>
>> The text uses "scheme" to mean the distinction between encoding
>> systems (GID, SGTIN, etc.) and and also to mean the distinction
>> between the 64-bit and 96-bit variations. This ambiguity is unwise.
>> It matters here, because you say "within each scheme ... can be
>> represented in a binary form or ... URI". Which meaning of "scheme"
>> are you using here? I thought you meant the second meaning when I
>> first read the paragraph, but after reading external documents about
>> EPC, I now understand that that last sentence uses "scheme" to in the
>> first sense.
>>
>> You need to be clearer here that there are three representations
>> used,
>> 64-bit binary, 96-bit binary, and URI (URN, actually), and
>> representation is orthogonal to the seven RFID schemes, with the
>> exception that RFID-GID does not have a 96-bit binary representation.
>>
>> I'm assuming that the Tag Data standard unambiguously defines the
>> serialization of the binary representations as a sequence of octets.
>> If it does not, this document MUST do that, or you will have an
>> endless nightmare of byte-order problems.
>>
>> 4. Descriptions of MNID types
>>
>> Identifier ownership is a general concern -- it's worth mentioning
>> for
>> each type of identifier where the assigner of the identifier obtains
>> delegation. For an EUI, I expect the reader will assume that it's an
>> EUI assigned to the device under IEEE rules, and similarly for RFID
>> and 3GPP identifiers. But for DUID identifiers, it's less clear.
>> I'm
>> guessing that the DUID is one that is, or could be, used by the
>> device
>> for DHCP purposes. For IPv6 addresses, it's even less clear, since
>> the IPv6 architecture doesn't assume that the association of
>> addresses
>> with devices is permanent.
>>
>> 4.1. Description of the IPv6 address type
>>
>> It would be good if the document described what the semantics of this
>> ID are. Yes, it's a unicast IPv6 address, but what is the connection
>> between that address and the device? I suspect the connection is
>> "the
>> device has been configured to expect that it will be assigned this
>> address as a long-term interface address", but there are other
>> possibilities. E.g., I can imagine a mobile carrier obtaining a /64
>> prefix (there are plenty of them!) and then assigning addresses out
>> of
>> it simply to create a sequence of unique identifiers for devices, but
>> not using those addresses on packets.
>>
>> Then again, perhaps you want to allow flexibility. But in any case,
>> I
>> think you need to specify what the rules are for what address is
>> associated with what device.
>>
>> 4.2. Description of the IMSI MNID type
>>
>> What does "in network order" mean here? As far as I know, there is
>> no
>> defined "network order" for 4-bit quantities, only for dividing
>> integers into octets and placing sequences of bits into octets. I
>> assume you mean that in any octet, the high-order 4 bits are the
>> first
>> digit and the low-order 4 bits are the second digit, but I think you
>> need to state that explicitly.
>>
>> 4.3. Description of the EUI-48 address type
>>
>> The IEEE EUI-48 address [IEEE802-eui48] is encoded as a 6 octet
>> string containing the IEEE EUI-48 address.
>>
>> Is "string" the correct word, this not being a sequence of
>> characters?
>> I would say "sequence of 6 octets" or simply "encoded as 6 octets".
>>
>> 4.9. Description of the RFID types
>>
>> This section needs to be revised. It provides a lot of detail about
>> the RFID types, but it's not enough detail for a reader who doesn't
>> understand RFID to learn how any particular RFID scheme works. E.g.,
>> the first paragraph says that GID contains three fields in the first
>> sentence, and that it contains four fields in the third sentence.
>> Despite this, the description isn't enough to allow the reader to
>> construct GID identifiers manually.
>>
>> On the other hand, readers who already understand the RFID schemes
>> will find this text redundant.
>>
>> I think that almost all of this text can be replaced by references to
>> the EPC documents, since these identifiers are opaque from the point
>> of view of mobile identification.
>>
>> 5. Security Considerations
>>
>> The base MNID specification, RFC 4283, gives these security
>> considerations (sec 4), which ought to be referenced and probably
>> summarized in this section:
>>
>> Moreover, MNIDs containing sensitive identifiers might only be
>> used
>> for signaling during initial network entry. Subsequent binding
>> update exchanges might then rely on a temporary identifier
>> allocated
>> during the initial network entry, perhaps using mechanisms not
>> standardized within the IETF. Managing the association between
>> long-
>> lived and temporary identifiers is outside the scope of this
>> document.
>>
>> What is the meaning of the word "might" in paragraph 3? I suspect
>> that the purpose is to qualify this paragraph with "One way to
>> address
>> these vulnerabilities is to only use MNIDs containing ...". But if
>> that is the meaning, that expanded wording should be used. Otherwise
>> the text reads as if it is hypothetical.
>>
>> [END]
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> dmm@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>