Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Threat Analysis for IEEE 802.11 Deployments
RFC 5418
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14 |
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from capwap-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis@ietf.org, scott@hyperthought.com, clancy@LTSnet.net to (None) |
2009-03-06 |
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
2009-03-06 |
04 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 5418' added by Amy Vezza |
2009-03-05 |
04 | (System) | RFC published |
2008-09-29 |
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2008-09-29 |
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-09-29 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2008-09-29 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-09-29 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2008-09-29 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2008-09-25 |
04 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] I know it is redundant, but the security considerations section should re-emphasize the scope of the threat analysis. I would suggest something like … [Ballot comment] I know it is redundant, but the security considerations section should re-emphasize the scope of the threat analysis. I would suggest something like the following: OLD: This document outlines a threat analysis for CAPWAP, NEW: This document outlines a threat analysis for CAPWAP in the context of IEEE 802.11 deployments, |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-09-24 |
04 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2008-09-24 |
04 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-09-24 |
04 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2008-09-24 |
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-09-23 |
04 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2008-09-19 |
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-09-17 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | Telechat date was changed to 2008-09-25 from by Dan Romascanu |
2008-09-17 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu |
2008-09-17 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot has been issued by Dan Romascanu |
2008-09-17 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-09-17 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Dan Romascanu |
2008-09-17 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-09-25 by Dan Romascanu |
2008-09-10 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-04.txt |
2008-08-14 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-03.txt |
2008-08-08 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-02.txt |
2008-07-14 |
04 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-07-08 |
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA actions. |
2008-06-30 |
04 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-06-30 |
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-06-29 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call was requested by Dan Romascanu |
2008-06-29 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Dan Romascanu |
2008-06-29 |
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-06-29 |
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-06-29 |
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-06-24 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | AD review by Dan Romascanu Please find below the AD Review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01. I believe that the document is mature and stable. I found a … AD review by Dan Romascanu Please find below the AD Review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01. I believe that the document is mature and stable. I found a small number of issues which are grouped in Technical and Editorial. As none of them has a dramatic impact or would require very consistent editing I suggest to consider these comments as Last Call comments, and proceed directly to IETF Last Call with this document. T1. Did the editors and the Working Group consider capitalizing RECOMMENDED and NOT RECOMMENDED as per RFC2119 when dealing with the recommended or not recommended practices described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3? If they did I would be interested to hear why they chose not to use capitalization. T2. Section 8 - I am missing from the list of vulnerabilities introduced by CAPWAP the vulnerabilities introduced by the CAPWAP MIB (or other) management interface. By exposing management objects related to the CAPWAP protocol the management interface exposes information otherwise not accessible to managers of 'fat' APs that a CAPWAP deployment replaces. E1. [80211I], [80211SEC] and [8021X] are fundamental for the understanding of this document. I suggest that they are moved to Normative References. E2. It would be appropriate to include a note drawing the attention to the fact that this document is based on the 2004 edition of the IEEE 802.1X standard, and that a new version of the protocol is under development in IEEE 802.1X at the time of the development of this document. E3. Please be explicit in the Abstract section about the fact that the scope of the document is CAPWAP deployments that will use the IEEE 802.11 binding |
2008-06-24 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Dan Romascanu |
2008-06-24 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | State Change Notice email list have been change to capwap-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis@tools.ietf.org, scott@hyperthought.com, clancy@LTSnet.net from capwap-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis@tools.ietf.org |
2008-04-17 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | SUBMISSION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR: draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01 ====================================================================== (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally … SUBMISSION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR: draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01 ====================================================================== (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? Mahalingam Mani will be the shepherd for this document. Yes, I have fully reviewed the document and believe that it is ready 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? It is my opinion that this document has been very well-reviewed. The draft itself is authored by both the Security Advisors to the WG. In addition to a lot of review within the WG we got an early secdir review (Joe Salowey) and received considerable ananlysis and feedback including Security AD as well as IETF chair. All issues raised during the course of these reviews were carefully tracked in an issue tracker and fully addressed. (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, I believe that this informational track document has received the required types and degree of review coverage. (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 security model discusses some security model of the base CAPWAP protocol (draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10) in the context of IEEE802.11 binding and related deployments. The document should be reviewed keeping in mind the context of the IEEE802.11 binding draft, although, by and large, the analysis holds good for other bindings. In review of base protocol and IEEE802.11 binding drafts (draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06) for security, this document will serve as a good guiding reference for IESG. This document itself does not have any specific concerns that I am aware of; given the wide review it has received from the sec-dir community and the early-and-often continual tracking of the base & IEEE802.11binding CAPWAP protocols by the authors of this document. (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? This document represents a very strong consensus of the WG. Many analyses and concerns raised in the WG by the Security Advisors for WG have been painstakingly addressed in the CAPWAP base & binding protocol drafts. This document reflects well the state of the security model of the resulting CAPWAP protocol. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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 one has threatened an appeal nor indicated any degree of discontent on this document. The WG and security community that got to review this and the CAPWAP protocol drafts have found this informational track document valuable in reviewing the base protocol security model. |
2008-04-17 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2007-10-23 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01.txt |
2007-08-21 |
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey. |
2007-07-20 |
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2007-07-20 |
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2007-02-13 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-00.txt |