Document: draft-ietf-pana-framework-08.txt
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: June 4, 2007
IETF LC End Date: June 7, 2007

Summary:
This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described
in the review.

Comments:
This draft has changed significantly since it's -06 version that
I previously reviewed for Gen-ART.  Sections 5-10 of the -06 draft
have been removed, resulting in a considerably higher level -08
document that is appropriate to publish as Informational (my
previous review of -06 had expressed a concern about whether it
should be standards track instead of informational).  Much of
my previous Gen-ART review concerned portions of the -06 draft
that have been removed:

http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-pana-framework-06-b
lack.txt

The following points from that review of -06 has not been addressed:

  Section 3 could use a discussion about the relationship of the
  access network to the network that PANA controls access to.
  Figure 1 ought to show the latter (accessed) network as connected
  to the EP, and a two-cloud ASCII diagram would be very useful.
  Among other things, this would make it clear that the access
  network is in general a shared access network

  Section 4 talks about authentication at two levels - the lower
  level (link native or IPsec) and EAP over PANA.  It needs to
  describe the recommended or required relationships between the
  identities used for these authentications.  If there is no
  relationship, there is a potential vulnerability (particularly
  in the IPsec scenario) to a man-in-the-middle attack where the
  secure channel ends are not at the PaC and EP.

The latter concern needs to be noted in the Security Considerations
section, even if it is addressed elsewhere - the solution need
not be in this draft, but the identity correspondence problem
is an aspect of the PANA framework and needs to be noted as a
security consideration.  

- Alper's email address needs to be updated, as the one in the draft
	does not work.

- idnits 2.04.08 complains that there's no Intended Status on the	
	first page.