Donald Eastlake said:
"Doing a little more research, 802.16e-2005, which
you don't reference, does begin to touch on this by at least
specifying how EAP fits into 802.16."
[BA] As I understand it, this document is focused entirely on
PKMv1, which does not support EAP. So it does not apply to
IEEE 802.16e-2005. That's quite an important point, since
there are existing specifications (from WiMAX forum) that
deal extensively with IEEE 802.16e/AAA interactions.
If that point is not very clear from the document, then it needs
to be.
[Donald Eastlake]
If above you are saying that the security of these new RADIUS
attributes can be evaluated entirely based on a knowledge of RADIUS, I
do not agree with this.
[BA]
PKMv1 has some fairly serious security problems that are described here:
http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/SNPD.2008.138
So I think the question is whether this document can make those serious
security problems even worse, in a way that has not already been
documented.
I'd suggest that the document reference the known security
issues that are covered in other documents, such as the ones above and
others (such as RFC 3579) that describe weaknesses in the MPPE-Key
attributes.
[Donald Eastlake]
If above, you are saying is that there is no
need for there to be some explanation, in your draft or in some
document referenced by it, of how RADIUS fits into 802.16 and that
people who don't have an a priori knowledge of this should just keep
their noses out of your document, I don't agree with that either.
[BA] I would suggest that the document could reference the
RADIUS specifications from WiMAX forum that relate
to IEEE 802.16e-2005 to make it clear that operation with
that updated specification is out of scope.
[Donald Eastlake]
"RADIUS can be used by an IEEE 802.16 Base Station, acting as an EAP
Authenticator, to communicate with a remote Authentication Server to
authenticate 802.16 Subscriber Stations and support 802.16 Privacy Key
Management Version 1. This document defines a set of additional RADIUS
Attributes which are designed to enable this support."
[BA] Since PKMv1 does not support EAP, mentioning EAP in the abstract
doesn't make sense.
[Donald Eastlake]
Is it really such a burden, to provide some security context for what
you are doing, to say something like:
"Security consideration for IEEE 802.16 appear in Section 7 of
802.16-2004 and of 802.16e-2005. Security considerations for RADIUS
extensions appear in RFC 2869." or the like? "
[BA] Since this document applies only to PKMv1, mentioning IEEE 802.16e
would probably be confusing. Mentioning RFC 3579 (which supercedes
RFC 2869 with respect to EAP/RADIUS) might make sense.
EMAILING FOR THE LEAST WORST BAD
Join me
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf