From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Wed May 1 08:46:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fmc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fmc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B57121F9A5E for ; Wed, 1 May 2013 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5g0+rCmIOBEY for ; Wed, 1 May 2013 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D445C21F9A47 for ; Wed, 1 May 2013 08:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id eo20so1404766lab.7 for ; Wed, 01 May 2013 08:46:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=xfJXJGTvKwpqZsVMkYLyN3oO9ps8WmHph0tAfCJaTFU=; b=OrnFNeqVj4jhl/mtqnISIWQfFpJIopGZjjovgBkiVwyIpkmZTkPsXl4Fv2jbej8VIZ okBxP78Wav9YA1ks7enH4+wRzv0nwiCFve1ePxdzjCdXp/UFZoiJ37DSSl/TkrYkbnNF NDZj8lIvMpIq9AT645BnPGyJh/ZQV7O6u0W+rKuaKwfTeXQUvoVU7voi6+sTrJD6dTIU dyuTGGmGURI8i/q65FExRhq5NcNZd/kGKaFxR82lEb3DGd9z2wkBo9varUQZAP1I6pFa 1hhxdnbrlwxSjsfjySz3e0+QkG8qlAs+wKoUZm8vPTkLSYw7tL2FsQsx+5RGsCtF81c+ u1Hw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.26.225 with SMTP id o1mr1137135lag.43.1367423185759; Wed, 01 May 2013 08:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.64.142 with HTTP; Wed, 1 May 2013 08:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 10:46:25 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: fmc@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158c7383eb2c504dbaa053a Cc: Brian Haberman , Mohamed Boucadair , Ted Lemon , Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Subject: [fmc] Next steps X-BeenThere: fmc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Fixed Mobile Convergence List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 15:46:27 -0000 --089e0158c7383eb2c504dbaa053a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all, As we said after Orlando meeting, I would like to draw your attention to the following: - Please submit solution drafts on the issues in scope. The more the better. -Wi-Fi access is in scope. - There are drafts submitted elsewhere but already received comments on this list, you may kindly consider submitting the revised versions here. - There are drafts submitted elsewhere, announced on this list and received some comments, please kindly consider replying to the comments and getting into some useful techical discussions. These are very important. - One more case: there are drafts submitted elsewhere not announced on this list but in scope, please kindly consider announcing them in the hopes of getting some useful feedback. We are looking forward to more active mailing list participation in the coming days. Regards, Behcet --089e0158c7383eb2c504dbaa053a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all,

As we said after Orlando meeting, I would like to draw your = attention to the following:

- Please submit solution drafts on the i= ssues in scope. The more the better.

-Wi-Fi access is in scope.

- There are drafts submitted elsewhere but already received comments on= this list, you may kindly consider submitting the revised versions here. <= br>
- There are drafts submitted elsewhere, announced on this list and r= eceived some comments, please kindly consider replying to the comments and = getting into some useful techical discussions. These are very important.
- One more case: there are drafts submitted elsewhere not announced on = this list but in scope, please kindly consider announcing them in the hopes= of getting some useful feedback.

We are looking forward to more act= ive mailing list participation in the coming days.

Regards,

Behcet
--089e0158c7383eb2c504dbaa053a-- From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Tue May 7 07:50:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fmc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fmc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA6C21F85ED; Tue, 7 May 2013 07:50:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H20dGHWRQHQ4; Tue, 7 May 2013 07:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B6B21F85D1; Tue, 7 May 2013 07:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 401053246ED; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:50:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.30]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1ACB623804B; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:50:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.233.200.25]) by PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.30]) with mapi; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:50:40 +0200 From: To: 'Joshua Shire' , "fmc@ietf.org" , "int-area@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:50:38 +0200 Thread-Topic: draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios Thread-Index: Ac5LMjyqGqkODLucTvmk2Pl+E8NMBw== Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36ECE1436BE@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.5.2.60325 Cc: "draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [fmc] draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios X-BeenThere: fmc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Fixed Mobile Convergence List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 14:50:46 -0000 Dear Joshua, Apologies for the delay to answer this message. I see your point. I will add it to the list of items to be considered for t= he next iteration of the document.=20 BTW, -03 already included some of requirements which cover security aspects= (see for instance REQ#1, REQ#2, REQ#3, REQ#9). Once we have a stable requi= rements list, we will identify the requirements which are valid for each us= e case: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-= scenarios-03#section-4.1=20 Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Joshua Shire [mailto:jshire@hyduke.com]=20 >Envoy=E9 : vendredi 25 janvier 2013 08:17 >=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; fmc@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org >Cc : draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios@tools.ietf.org >Objet : RE: draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios > >Hello, > >I do not believe a pointer to=20 >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analys >is-04#section-3 will be satisfactory for the security=20 >considerations section.=20 > >http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3552.txt states that when writing=20 >a security considerations section, the process "...should be=20 >approached as an effort to perform "due diligence" in=20 >describing all known or foreseeable risks and threats to=20 >potential implementers and users." Normally we see RFCs=20 >describing more applied topics such as protocols, so the=20 >specific language and examples given in the above mentioned=20 >RFC may not seem directly applicable. However, "in spirit",=20 >the document seems clear in requiring all RFCs to examine in=20 >detail their potential security impact. > >As I'm sure we're all aware, some of the use cases identified=20 >are purposefully implemented to maintain the confidentiality=20 >of a client's identity (e.g. NAT to obfuscate the structure of=20 >an enterprise network, Open-Wifi to conceal the identity of a=20 >client under threat of persecution [or prosecution], etc.).=20 > >Thus, in identifying these scenarios as sharing the "issue" of=20 >host identification, the author would seem to be required to=20 >discuss the potential security implications of treating the=20 >lack of host identification as such, rather than a desirable feature. > >Thanks, > >Joshua Shire >Information Systems Manager >Hyduke Energy Services Inc. > >-----Original Message----- >From: int-area-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of=20 >mohamed.boucadair@orange.com >Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:08 AM >To: fmc@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org >Cc: draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios@tools.ietf.org >Subject: [Int-area] draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios > >Dear all, > >We submitted an updated version of this draft to list use=20 >cases which encounter the issue of host identification. The=20 >following use cases are discussed in the draft: > > (1) Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) > (2) A+P (e.g., MAP ) > (3) Application Proxies > (4) Provider Wi-Fi > (5) Policy and Charging Architectures > (6) Cellular Networks > (7) Femtocells > (8) Overlay Networks (e.g., CDNs) > >The document does not include any solution-specific=20 >discussion. Its main goal is to identify the use cases and=20 >describe them.=20 > >If you think your use case is not included in this version,=20 >please share it with us.=20 > >Comments are welcome.=20 > >Cheers, >Med > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de=20 >internet-drafts@ietf.org Envoy=E9 : lundi 3 d=E9cembre 2012 08:26=20 >=C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org Objet : I-D Action:=20 >draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-02.txt > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line=20 >Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : Host Identification: Use Cases > Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair > David Binet > Sophie Durel > Tirumaleswar Reddy > Brandon Williams > Filename :=20 >draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-02.txt > Pages : 14 > Date : 2012-12-02 > >Abstract: > This document describes a set of scenarios in which host > identification is required. > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-i >dentifier-scenarios > >There's also a htmlized version available at: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identif >ier-scenarios-02 > >A diff from the previous version is available at: >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-boucadair-intarea-host-i >dentifier-scenarios-02 > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >_______________________________________________ >I-D-Announce mailing list >I-D-Announce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or=20 >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >_______________________________________________ >Int-area mailing list >Int-area@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Wed May 29 08:11:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fmc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: fmc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D0221F88B6; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:11:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uEjHFPDE4tdQ; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail43.telekom.de (tcmail43.telekom.de [80.149.113.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09EE21F8825; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.23]) by tcmail41.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 29 May 2013 17:11:03 +0200 Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.124]) by HE111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 29 May 2013 17:11:02 +0200 From: To: , , , Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:11:01 +0200 Thread-Topic: draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios Thread-Index: Ac5LMjyqGqkODLucTvmk2Pl+E8NMBwRSW5PQ Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2BBFB11613@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36ECE1436BE@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36ECE1436BE@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [fmc] draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios X-BeenThere: fmc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Fixed Mobile Convergence List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:11:12 -0000 Hi Med, all, I see also the section 3.7 on femto cells with high security demands for tu= nneled (mobile) data via IPSec through the fixed network. Another question is whether to include also a scenario for NAT46 addressing= IPv4 clients at end user nodes connected to both IPv6 RGW and IPv6 access = network? I think while many operators are starting to deploy IPv6 in their= core and aggregation networks there will always be (maybe old fashioned) c= ustomers which continue to use their available equipment, e.g. for telephon= y. Perhaps this is already handled, e.g. in UC 3.6, but I couldn't find NAT46 = to be mentioned. Did I miss something? What do you think? Thanks! Best regards Dirk -----Original Message----- From: fmc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fmc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of moham= ed.boucadair@orange.com Sent: Dienstag, 7. Mai 2013 16:51 To: 'Joshua Shire'; fmc@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org Cc: draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [fmc] draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios Dear Joshua, Apologies for the delay to answer this message. I see your point. I will add it to the list of items to be considered for t= he next iteration of the document.=20 BTW, -03 already included some of requirements which cover security aspects= (see for instance REQ#1, REQ#2, REQ#3, REQ#9). Once we have a stable requi= rements list, we will identify the requirements which are valid for each us= e case: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-= scenarios-03#section-4.1=20 Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Joshua Shire [mailto:jshire@hyduke.com]=20 >Envoy=E9 : vendredi 25 janvier 2013 08:17 >=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; fmc@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org >Cc : draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios@tools.ietf.org >Objet : RE: draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios > >Hello, > >I do not believe a pointer to=20 >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analys >is-04#section-3 will be satisfactory for the security=20 >considerations section.=20 > >http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3552.txt states that when writing=20 >a security considerations section, the process "...should be=20 >approached as an effort to perform "due diligence" in=20 >describing all known or foreseeable risks and threats to=20 >potential implementers and users." Normally we see RFCs=20 >describing more applied topics such as protocols, so the=20 >specific language and examples given in the above mentioned=20 >RFC may not seem directly applicable. However, "in spirit",=20 >the document seems clear in requiring all RFCs to examine in=20 >detail their potential security impact. > >As I'm sure we're all aware, some of the use cases identified=20 >are purposefully implemented to maintain the confidentiality=20 >of a client's identity (e.g. NAT to obfuscate the structure of=20 >an enterprise network, Open-Wifi to conceal the identity of a=20 >client under threat of persecution [or prosecution], etc.).=20 > >Thus, in identifying these scenarios as sharing the "issue" of=20 >host identification, the author would seem to be required to=20 >discuss the potential security implications of treating the=20 >lack of host identification as such, rather than a desirable feature. > >Thanks, > >Joshua Shire >Information Systems Manager >Hyduke Energy Services Inc. > >-----Original Message----- >From: int-area-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of=20 >mohamed.boucadair@orange.com >Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:08 AM >To: fmc@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org >Cc: draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios@tools.ietf.org >Subject: [Int-area] draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios > >Dear all, > >We submitted an updated version of this draft to list use=20 >cases which encounter the issue of host identification. The=20 >following use cases are discussed in the draft: > > (1) Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) > (2) A+P (e.g., MAP ) > (3) Application Proxies > (4) Provider Wi-Fi > (5) Policy and Charging Architectures > (6) Cellular Networks > (7) Femtocells > (8) Overlay Networks (e.g., CDNs) > >The document does not include any solution-specific=20 >discussion. Its main goal is to identify the use cases and=20 >describe them.=20 > >If you think your use case is not included in this version,=20 >please share it with us.=20 > >Comments are welcome.=20 > >Cheers, >Med > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de=20 >internet-drafts@ietf.org Envoy=E9 : lundi 3 d=E9cembre 2012 08:26=20 >=C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org Objet : I-D Action:=20 >draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-02.txt > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line=20 >Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : Host Identification: Use Cases > Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair > David Binet > Sophie Durel > Tirumaleswar Reddy > Brandon Williams > Filename :=20 >draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-02.txt > Pages : 14 > Date : 2012-12-02 > >Abstract: > This document describes a set of scenarios in which host > identification is required. > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-i >dentifier-scenarios > >There's also a htmlized version available at: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identif >ier-scenarios-02 > >A diff from the previous version is available at: >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-boucadair-intarea-host-i >dentifier-scenarios-02 > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >_______________________________________________ >I-D-Announce mailing list >I-D-Announce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or=20 >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >_______________________________________________ >Int-area mailing list >Int-area@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ fmc mailing list fmc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fmc