Network Discovery and Selection Problem
draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-09

[Ballot discuss]
This discuss supports and expands Chris Newman's discuss with respect to credential
selection and use.

The introduction begins by noting current network access clients are typically
preconfigured with access networks and corresponding identities and credentials.
The document devotes a great deal of energy to the implications of network
discovery on the "identity selection problem".  However, credential selection is
viewed as simply another aspect of identity selection, and is treated far less
rigorously.  I beleive that new security issues with respect to credentials are
introduced by the move away from preconfigured access networks, and need
to be discussed in more detail.

Given the difficulties in UI design that Chris has already highlighted, I would
say that some credential types and authentication methods used with
preconfigured access networks will be inappropriate for use when network
discovery is employed.  Specifically, weaker credentials and mechanisms
that reveal something about the credential would seem to be a bad idea.

I believe that additional material in the body (either in 2.2 or in a new
subsection 2.x) is needed, as well as an expansion of the security
considerations section.

[Ballot comment]
1. s/IEEE 802.1ab/IEEE 802.1AB/

2. I do not believe that this is critical to the point of being a blocking issue in this document, but I need to observe that I would have expected such a comprehensive document to include operational and manageability considerations. Specifically I would have expected the document to mention wheter from an operational point of view there is a need for a network device to expose through a management interface information like the available network discovery capabilities, or the status of discovery and selection of points of attachments.

[Ballot discuss]
I find the security considerations section rather weak on this document.

Probably the most important security consideration that comes to mind
related to this problem is the ability to construct a client/device user
interface that makes it unlikely a user will expose reusable or otherwise
easy-to-compromise credentials to the wrong network.

I would like to discuss this during the IESG call, although it's likely
I'll clear this discuss during the call unless others on the IESG feel
the same way.

PROTO Write-up

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Glen Zorn is the document shepherd for this document and has personally reviewed the document and believes that it is ready to be forwarded to the IESG for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

They document has received adequate review from both working group and non WG members. The Document Shepherd has no concerns with respect to the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue.

The Document Shepherd is unaware of any specific concerns or issues with the document. No IPR disclosures related to draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem have been submitted.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document represents a reasonably strong consensus with the active members of the working group in favor of the document moving forward.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).

Yes.

Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative?
Yes.

Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
No.

If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion?
Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?
No.

If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
The document has split references with no downward or dependent references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA Considerations section exists only to say that no IANA actions are required.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker?

Not applicable

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

When multiple access networks are available, users may have difficulty in selecting which network to connect to, and how to authenticate with that network. This document defines the network discovery and selection problem, dividing it into multiple sub-problems. Some constraints on potential solutions are outlined, and the limitations of several solutions (including existing ones) are discussed.

Working Group Summary

The document represents rough consensus of the working group.

Document Quality

This document has been reviewed extensively and the Document Shepherd belives it to be of high quality.

Personnel

Glen Zorn is the document shepherd. The responsible Area Director is Mark Townsley.