Hi Charlie,
Please see inline for my review comments.
Regards
Sri
Distributed Mobility Management [dmm] C. Perkins
Internet-Draft Futurewei
Expires: October 24, 2015 V. Devarapalli
Vasona Networks
April 22, 2015
MN Identifier Types for RFC 4283 Mobile Node Identifier Option
draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-00.txt
Abstract
Additional Identifier Types are proposed for use with the Mobile Node
Identifier Option for MIPv6 (RFC 4283).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 24, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Perkins & Devarapalli Expires October 24, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MN Identifier Types for RFC 4283 April 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. New Mobile Node Identifier Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The Mobile Node Identifier Option for MIPv6 [RFC4283] has proved to
be a popular design tool for providing identifiers for mobile nodes
during authentication procedures with AAA protocols such as Diameter
[RFC3588]. To date, only a single type of identifier has been
specified, namely the MN NAI. Other types of identifiers are in
common use, and even referenced in RFC 4283.
[Sri] Some text on the motivation for defining new Types may be helpful.
Document is not just standardizing the currently in-use/popular identifier
types, its also introducing new types are not in use. The reasons/interest for
defining identifiers that are tied to the physical elements of the device
(RFID, MAC address ..etc) and how it helps in deployment of the technology may
be useful. Few lines of text will really help.
In this document, we
propose adding some basic types that are commonly in use in various
telecommunications standards, including the IMSI, P-TMSI, IMEI, GUTI,
and IEEE MAC-layer addresses. In addition, we include the IPv6
address itself as a legitimate mobile node identifier.
[Sri] References for IMSI, P-TMSI, IMEI, GUTI; May be 3GPP TS 23.003.
2. 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 identifer.
EPC supports several encoding systems or schemes including
[Sri] EPC? EPC Tag Standards I assume, not the Evolved Packet Core. Reference
to [EPC-Tag-Data] will help
o RFID-GID (Global Identifier), o RFID-SGTIN (Serialized Global Trade Item
Number), o RFID-SSCC (Serial Shipping Container), o RFID-GLN (Global Location
Number), o RFID-GRAI (Global Returnable Asset Identifier), o RFID-DOD
(Department of Defense) and o RFID-GIAI (Global Individual Asset Identifier).
For each RFID scheme except GID, there are two variations: a 64-bit scheme (for
example, GLN-64) and a 96-bit scheme (GLN-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.
Perkins & Devarapalli Expires October 24, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft MN
Identifier Types for RFC 4283 April 2015 o IPv6 Address [RFC2373] o IMSI
[ThreeGPP-IDS] o P-TMSI [ThreeGPP-IDS] o GUTI [ThreeGPP-IDS] o EUI-48 address
[IEEE802] o EUI-64 address [IEEE802] o DUID-LLT [RFC3315] o DUID-EN [RFC3315] o
DUID-LL [RFC3315] o DUID-UUID [RFC6355] o 12-15 reserved o 16 reserved o
RFID-SGTIN-64 [EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-SSCC-64 [EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-GLN-64
[EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-GRAI-64 [EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-DOD-64 [RFID-DoD-96] o
RFID-GIAI-64 [EPC-Tag-Data] o 23 reserved o RFID-GID-96 [EPC-Tag-Data] o
RFID-SGTIN-96 [EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-SSCC-96 [EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-GLN-96
[EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-GRAI-96 [EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-DOD-96 [RFID-DoD-96] o
RFID-GIAI-96 [EPC-Tag-Data] o 31 reserved o RFID-GID-URI [EPC-Tag-Data] o
RFID-SGTIN-URI [EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-SSCC-URI [EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-GLN-URI
[EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-GRAI-URI [EPC-Tag-Data] o RFID-DOD-URI [RFID-DoD-96] o
RFID-GIAI-URI [EPC-Tag-Data] o 39-255 reserved
[Sri] This is a major issue.
I was hoping to see a sub-section for each of the types. We cannot standardize
a identifier type without providing any explanation on the identifier type or
the references to the base definitions. This can be painful, but I'd have a
small section for each of the types. It can be 3 line text on the a.)
Definition b.) Format c.) Example format d.) Reference to the base spec that
defines those identifiers.
3. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any security mechanisms, and does
not have any impact on existing security mechanisms. Insofar as the
selection of a security association may be dependent on the exact
form of a mobile node identifier, additional specification may be
necessary when the new identifier types are employed with the general
AAA mechanisms for mobile node authorizations.
Some identifiers (e.g., IMSI) are considered to be private
information. If used in the MNID extension as defined in this
document, the packet including the MNID extension should be encrypted
Sri] Besides the use of IMSI, the document also defines the use of other
sensitive identifiers such as IPv6.
Mention of the available tools for privacy protection may be helpful. Some
thing along these lines, or better text:
" This information is considered to be very sensitive, so care must be taken
to secure the
Mobile IPv6/Proxy Mobile IPv6 signaling messages when carrying this
sub-option.
The base Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification [RFC5213] specifies the use
of IPsec for securing the signaling messages, and those mechanisms
can be enabled for protecting this information. Operators can
potentially apply IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) with
confidentiality and integrity protection for protecting the location
information. "
Perkins & Devarapalli Expires October 24, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft MN
Identifier Types for RFC 4283 April 2015 so that personal information or
trackable identifiers would not be inadvertently disclosed to passive
observers. Moreover, MNIDs containing sensitive identifiers might only be used
for signaling during initial network entry. Subsequent binding update exchanges
would then rely on a temporary identifier allocated during the initial network
entry.
[Sri] The MAG/MN can certainly obtain an temporary identifier as part of he
access authentication and can use the same in the signaling. But, I'M unaware
of any spec where the MN identifier changes between initial and subsequent
binding updates. Clarification may be help
4. IANA Considerations
The new mobile node identifier types defined in the document should
be assigned values from the "Mobile Node Identifier Option Subtypes"
registry. The following values should be assigned.
Perkins & Devarapalli Expires October 24, 2015 [Page 4]
New Mobile Node Identifier Types
+-----------------+------------------------+
| Identifier Type | Identifier Type Number |
+-----------------+------------------------+
| IPv6 Address | 2 |
| IMSI | 3 |
| P-TMSI | 4 |
| EUI-48 address | 5 |
| EUI-64 address | 6 |
| GUTI | 7 |
| DUID-LLT | 8 |
| DUID-EN | 9 |
| DUID-LL | 10 |
| DUID-UUID | 11 |
| | 12-15 reserved |
| | 16 reserved |
| RFID-SGTIN-64 | 17 |
| RFID-SSCC-64 | 18 |
| RFID-GLN-64 | 19 |
| RFID-GRAI-64 | 20 |
| RFID-DOD-64 | 21 |
| RFID-GIAI-64 | 22 |
| | 23 reserved |
| RFID-GID-96 | 24 |
| RFID-SGTIN-96 | 25 |
| RFID-SSCC-96 | 26 |
| RFID-GLN-96 | 27 |
| RFID-GRAI-96 | 28 |
| RFID-DOD-96 | 29 |
| RFID-GIAI-96 | 30 |
| | 31 reserved |
| RFID-GID-URI | 32 |
| RFID-SGTIN-URI | 33 |
| RFID-SSCC-URI | 34 |
| RFID-GLN-URI | 35 |
| RFID-GRAI-URI | 36 |
| RFID-DOD-URI | 37 |
| RFID-GIAI-URI | 38 |
| | 39-255 reserved |
+-----------------+------------------------+
Table 1
See Section 2 for details about the identifer types.
[Sri] But, Section 2 has no text on the above types.
Perkins & Devarapalli Expires October 24, 2015 [Page 5] Internet-Draft MN
Identifier Types for RFC 4283 April 2015 5. References 5.1. Normative
References [RFC2373] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998. [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B.,
Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. [RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R.
Salz, "A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122, July
2005. [RFC4283] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury,
"Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)", RFC 4283, November
2005. [RFC4285] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury,
"Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4285, January 2006. [RFC6355]
Narten, T. and J. Johnson, "Definition of the UUID-Based DHCPv6 Unique
Identifier (DUID-UUID)", RFC 6355, August 2011. 5.2. Informative References
[EPC-Tag-Data] EPCglobal Inc., , "EPC(TM) Generation 1 Tag Data Standards
Version 1.1 Rev.1.27 http://www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc/epcglobal/tds/
tds_1_1_rev_1_27-standard-20050510.pdf", January 2005. [IEEE802] IEEE, , "IEEE
Std 802: IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Networks: Overview and
Architecture", 2001. [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn,
G., and J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[RFID-DoD-96] Department of Defense, , "United States Department of Defense
Suppliers Passive RFID Information Guide (Version 15.0)", January 2010. Perkins
& Devarapalli Expires October 24, 2015 [Page 6] Internet-Draft MN Identifier
Types for RFC 4283 April 2015 [ThreeGPP-IDS] 3rd Generation Partnership
Project, , "3GPP Technical Specification 23.003 V8.4.0: Technical Specification
Group Core Network and Terminals; Numbering, addressing and identification
(Release 8)", March 2009. Authors' Addresses Charles E. Perkins Futurewei Inc.
2330 Central Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95050 USA Phone: +1-408-330-4586 Email:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Vijay Devarapalli Vasona
Networks 2900 Lakeside Drive, Suite 180 Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA
[Sri] Vijay ? Who is that ? References to people from ancient history and who
are currently dormant can be silently omitted :)
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
