On 13/07/2018 21:26, Owen Friel (ofriel) wrote: > I think its more accurate to state: > > “What a CUSTOMER wants to avoid is a pledge joining a network where the MASA > just does the logging and does no validation, without any other means to > determine that the device is on the correct network.” E.g. I plug in a wi-fi > device and it connects to the SSID of the company on the floor below me.
That is so far outside the scope of the autonomic networking infrastructure application of BRSKI that I don't see why we'd even mention it. It's a case that definitely needs to fail hard in the autonomic context. If we want to extend the scope of BRSKI to cover BYOD on insecure WiFi, I think that's for some other WG. Brian > The MASA cannot help with this unless there is complex sales channel > integration and the MASA explicitly knows in advance exactly what network > each pledge will be connecting to. A potential option is to also require the > registrar to provide some proof of ownership to the MASA in the > VoucherRequest. > > From: Anima <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Eliot Lear > Sent: Thursday 12 July 2018 17:38 > To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Anima] Revision of scope of MASA in the BRSKI - Reg > > > The problem is that the manufacturer doesn't have enough context to make > decisions as to which network to join. That is the challenge. > > On 12.07.18 17:12, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > Eliot Lear <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > > involved. What a manufacturer wants to avoid is a pledge joining a > > > network where the MASA just does the logging and does no validation, > > > without any other means to determine that the device is on the > > > correct network. Otherwise, the pledge (we could call it the > > > "station" in this context) could simply home to the wrong network, > > > and even resetting the device won't get you to the right network. > > > > I don't understand how the "manufacturer" can have a desire ("the pledge > > avoid joining a network ...") that is different from the MASA's desire. > > > > The MASA *is* the expression manufacturer's desire. > > If the manufacturer has sales channel information that indicates the Pledge > > is on the wrong network, it should not issue a voucher. > > > > So the situation you describe makes no sense to me. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Anima mailing list > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > > > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
