Two more things:
- Alper's email address needs to be updated, as the one in the draft
does not work.
- idnits 2.04.08 complains that there's no Intended Status on the
first page.
Thanks,
--David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 12:18 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
> '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
> '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[email protected]'
> Cc: Black, David; 'Mark Townsley'; 'Basavaraj Patil'
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pana-framework-08.txt
>
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
>
> Document: draft-ietf-pana-framework-08.txt
> Reviewer: David L. Black
> Review Date: June 4, 2007
> IETF LC End Date: June 7, 2007
>
> Summary:
> This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described
> in the review.
>
> Comments:
> This draft has changed significantly since it's -06 version that
> I previously reviewed for Gen-ART. Sections 5-10 of the -06 draft
> have been removed, resulting in a considerably higher level -08
> document that is appropriate to publish as Informational (my
> previous review of -06 had expressed a concern about whether it
> should be standards track instead of informational). Much of
> my previous Gen-ART review concerned portions of the -06 draft
> that have been removed:
>
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-pana-fram
ework-06-black.txt
>
> The following points from that review of -06 has not been addressed:
>
> Section 3 could use a discussion about the relationship of the
> access network to the network that PANA controls access to.
> Figure 1 ought to show the latter (accessed) network as connected
> to the EP, and a two-cloud ASCII diagram would be very useful.
> Among other things, this would make it clear that the access
> network is in general a shared access network
>
> Section 4 talks about authentication at two levels - the lower
> level (link native or IPsec) and EAP over PANA. It needs to
> describe the recommended or required relationships between the
> identities used for these authentications. If there is no
> relationship, there is a potential vulnerability (particularly
> in the IPsec scenario) to a man-in-the-middle attack where the
> secure channel ends are not at the PaC and EP.
>
> The latter concern needs to be noted in the Security Considerations
> section, even if it is addressed elsewhere - the solution need
> not be in this draft, but the identity correspondence problem
> is an aspect of the PANA framework and needs to be noted as a
> security consideration.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
