10/19/201821-07-0404-00-0000-Dec13_Teleconference_Minutes.doc

Project / IEEE 802.21 MIHO

Title / Teleconference Minutes
Date Submitted / Dec 12, 2007
Source(s) / Y. Alice Cheng (Telcordia Technologies)
Re: / IEEE 802.21 Teleconference on December13th, 2007
Abstract / Teleconference minutes for Security Study Group teleconference
Purpose / Teleconference minutes
Notice / This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.21 Working Group. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release / The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.21.
Patent Policy / The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual and in Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development

Date: December 13th, 2007 9:00AM-10:45AM EST

Discussion Topic: TR contributions

Attendees:

Marc Meylemans (Intel), KevinNoll (Time Warner), Ron Pon (Nortel), Lily Chen (NIST), Shubhranshu Singh (Samsung), Subir Das(Telcordia), Rahul Sinha(Samsung india), Maryna Komarova (Telecom Paris),Clint Chaplin (Samsung), Yoshihiro Ohba (Toshiba), Alice Cheng (Telcordia).

1.Call for meeting

Agenda:

  • Submission instruction for TR contribution
  • Status update for harmonization
  • Scope issue
  • Maryna’s contribution

2.Submission instruction for TR contribution

Contribution: 21-07-0448-00-0000-Jan2007_Security_SG_TR_Contribution_Instructions.doc

Chair: Please submit the TR contributions to Yoshi and copy Vivek. The submission deadline is January 7, 2008. Any comments?

Group: (No questions from the bridge.)

3.Discuss TR contribution harmonization

Summary by Subir Das

The scenario will be generic instead of specifying the specific technology.We definitely include the 802 family and try to define the scope issue for the study group.

4.Scope Issues

Chair: There was an email thread for scope issues discussion, including:

  1. Should we support non-EAP, in addition to EAP
  2. Should we support non-802 handover , in addition to 802 handover
  3. Should we support intra domain handover, in addition to inter administration domain handover

Thanks for all who provided their inputs.One of the comments was two phase approach to focus on specific area and expand on the second phase instead of excluding more complicated scenarios.We will use this approach.

There was not much commitment to involve with other SDOs to work on non 802 networks.

Comment: the 3GPP group has started some work on handover with other networks including security. They addressed 802 handover with 3GPP, we should establish liaison in the future and include in the second phase.We should create a harmonization with their specification.

Comment: 3GPP SA2 typically doesn’t discuss security related issues; it includes only handover messaging.

Chair: In Phase 1, we can research in this area. The actual solutions still focus on EAP and the scenarios defined.

Comment: We will focus on handover in 802 networks with EAP.

Comment: In the TR we don’t need to describe Phase 1 or Phase 2. Do we have any conviction to say that what we are including in Phase 1 or Phase 2.

Comment: The PAR should contain only the Phase 1. Phase 2 will be amending the original PAR.

Comment: If the PAR doesn’t mention EAP and keep as general as possible, then it will allow other contributions. However, EAP is the solution set, shouldn’t be define in the PAR.

Comment: But this discussion will come all over again

Comment: If we keep it general enough, then when the group is formed, the floor will be providing contribution and discussion in this area.

Comment: The Executive Committeedoesn’t like specific solution.

Comment: When are we going to have a draft of the PAR? With a drafted PAR, we have specifics to discuss about instead.

Comment: We should have a PAR to be submitted in March. This means we have to have a clear discussion in January.

Chair: We will have a draft in January for discussion.

Comment: We can continue the TR by March.

Comment: The conclusion we had was to focus on handover between 802 networks. If that is true, then it locks us up in using EAP.

Chair: Our goal is to have the study group and the working group to agree on the PAR on January. We can circulate it by the end of the year.

Comment: we should let people understand this is very important to address attractive scenarios. On the other hand we should also need to keep the target realistic to finish the TR.

Chair [conclusion]: There are email lists and meeting minutes to justify the discussion details on the scope. The PAR we don’t include any specific solution domain such as EAPor inter-domain. In the PAR will be only within 802 networks.

Comment: The TR contribution will include all inter and intra domain handover scenarios.

Comment: In the 802.21 general PAR. The definition of the scope is between 802 and the cellular system. Do we need to match the scope with the working group?

Comment: This depends onwhether the task group PAR is going to be a new par or an amendment of the Working group PAR.

Comment: The TR harmonization is between Marc, Subir, Lily, Shubhranshu and every one is open to join.

Editor: We can have the TR ready on Jan 7, 2008 and open for comments.

5.Discuss TR contribution


(Double click the slides to view it.)

Presenter: There is no MIHF entity security. This contribution identifies the requirements on where the security is needed for MIHF entity. The actual solution will be implementation specific.

Comment: First it should be agreed on the requirement in order to define if the actual solutions are implementation specific.

Chair: The SB comments contain some request for the security and referring to this work.What should be included in the PAR?

Presenter: We can define the requirement on securingthe interface between the MIH entities and security requirements for MIH transport.

Comment: We should create use cases for MIH level security.

Conclusion: We will start a mailing thread to discuss the MIH level security requirements and what needs to be included into the PAR.

6.Additional items

Comment: Any idea on which day will the SSG slots will be?

Chair: No information about it yet.

Comment: The working group needs to approve the PAR with a 15 day ballot. It should be as complete as we can get so that we can have the approval from the working group during the January meeting.

7.Conclusion

We will continue to have the discussion in the mailing list. Chair will send out the PAR by the end of the year. Editor will have a draft of the TR no later than Jan 7, 2008.

1