NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 43rd IETF Meeting in Orlando, Florida. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 25-Nov-98
Chair(s):
Glen Zorn <glennz@microsoft.com>
Pat Calhoun <pcalhoun@eng.sun.com>
Operations and Management Area Director(s):
Harald Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>
Bert Wijnen <wijnen@vnet.ibm.com>
Operations and Management Area Advisor:
Harald Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>
Technical Advisor(s):
Michael O'Dell <mo@uu.net>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:roamops@tdmx.rutgers.edu
To Subscribe: roamops-request@tdmx.rutgers.edu
In Body: subscribe
Archive: ftp://ftp-no.rutgers.edu/misc/IETF/roamops
Description of Working Group:
The purpose of this group is to develop or adopt procedures, mechanisms and protocols to support user roaming among groups of Internet service providers (ISPs). This is different from, but related to, the work of the IP Routing for Wireless/Mobile Hosts Working Group (mobileip) in that the roamops group is not concerned with the movement of hosts or subnets, but of users. Thus far, the group has produced an architectural document describing the basic mechanisms required to support user roaming, a description of several existing roaming implementations and defined a standard username syntax to support roaming. A repository for documentation describing current roaming implementations is also maintained.
In the future, the group will address interoperability among ISPs and roaming users by standardizing such items as network usage data exchange (including the content, format and protocols involved), phone book attributes and exchange/update protocols, authentication and authorization mechanisms and exploring in in depth the security issues involved with roaming. This work is expected to consist mainly of new or revised procedures and application-layer protocols, in addition to recommendations for the fulfillment of the Internet roaming requirements.
Any and all business issues regarding the operation of an ISP roaming network (such as settlement, business and billing methods) are specifically NOT in the scope of the roamops Working Group and will not be discussed.
The group will work closely with other IETF Working Groups (including mobileip, saag and cat) to identify issues to which the roamops group should attend, as well as to assure that their work does not make roaming unnecessarily difficult or impossible.
The utmost goal of the group will to make sure, by any means necessary, that it produces documents of high quality that are useful to the IETF community.
Goals and Milestones:
Done |
|
Re-submit existing Internet-Drafts as work of the ROAMOPS Working Group |
Done |
|
Review the charter for additional work required |
Done |
|
Submit the roaming implementations review draft for publication as an Informational RFC. |
Done |
|
Submit the roaming requirements and network authentication identifier drafts for publication as a Proposed Standard. |
Done |
|
Submit Internet-Drafts on phone book attributes and format. |
Aug 98 |
|
Submit the authentication draft for publication as a Proposed Standard. |
Aug 98 |
|
Submit the accounting draft for publication as a Proposed Standard. |
Sep 98 |
|
Submit a BCP on roaming requirements fulfillment |
Internet-Drafts:
· The Network Access Identifier
· The Accounting Data Interchange Format (ADIF)
· Proxy Chaining and Policy Implementation in Roaming
· Secure Radius Server Operation Guidelines for Dial Roaming
Request For Comments:
RFC |
Status |
Title |
RFC2194 |
Review of Roaming Implementations | |
Agenda
- Charter Review
- Document Status
- Network Access Identifier - Draft 12
- Do we need a more complex NAI
- Accounting Data Interchange Format (ADIF) - Draft 5
- Mobile IP and the NAI
- XML Phone Book
- Alternative Roaming Applications
Charter Review
We are almost complete with the work that is on the charter. There are two errors in the charter. There was a double "in in" and the last paragraph: "The utmost goal of the group will [be] to make sure"
Document Status
Roaming Requirements - This document was approved by the IESG and is sitting on the RFC editor's desk.
Proxy Chaining - Should this document remain in the standards track, or be published as informational. This document has some serious security problems, which should be stated. Consensus was to change the document as informational and move it along. Last call next monday to hopefully be published next month.
The document must include a paragraph to state the WG's feeling about the document. The -09 document will be available in 1/99.
LDAP Phonebook - This document has expired and will not be updated. The idea is to send out another version that uses XML instead.
End-to-end - Mention of RADIUS should be removed and the document could simply define the methods that provide end-to-end security. We will discuss on the list.
2. Do we need a more complex NAI? / John Vollbrecht
The problem today is that there is no way for a user to "select" the broker to be used (e.g. choosing Visa rather than Discover). Many providers are currently using "broker/user@domain". Since this is being used in many networks, should we standardize an extended format.
It has been stated that this is a kludge, and if a document was published to describe this, it should be stated in the document. Another solution is to have different domains when a user wants to have multiple brokers.
Paul Funk will write an Internet-Draft to describe the NAI Prefix.
Does this belong in the requirements? Since it is optional, it does not necessarily make it a requirement. Since the requirements draft is on the RFC editor's chair, let's not do it right now. This may become a requirement in the future.
3. ADIF
The last draft has cleaned up text and includes the IANA considerations. Next Monday a WG last call will be done.
4. Mailing List silence
A plea from Glen to have people participate on the mailing list. The current trend, to wait until last call is slowing the progress of the working group.
5. XML and Phone Book
Glen has let the LDAP phone book draft expire and wishes to to send another version of the draft which translates all of the attributes to XML. There was a positive comment, but we do not have any expertise with XML. We are looking for a document editor with XML experience. The plea will be extended to the
list.
Maximilian Riegel [Maximilian.Riegel@icn.siemens.de] has volunteered to take ownership of this work item.
6. Alternative Roaming Applications and Mobile IP
The WG has decided that we will be looking at new applications because it fits within our charter. We will work on the security model for roaming to ensure that it is solved for all applications.
However, we must be sure that we do not lose focus and finish up our WG items before we pick up new work.
None received.