[Nsi-wg] Network names and authentication scaling

[Jerry Sobieski]

Hi all-

An issue occurs to me:

First...
Given that each Network has exactly one NSA, then the implication is 
that no two different NSAs can claim to represent/be the same network.  
Since our discussion today decided that the Network Name (used in 
tuples) and the NSA_ID (used in messages) were identical, it follows 
then that every NSA RA requesting a connection must be identified by an 
NSA_ID that being a Network name also must be globally unique.   Even 
simple user codes just requesting an adhoc connection become RAs by 
definition...and therefore are required to get a globally unique NSAID. 
     For simple user requests, this seems onerous...is this really 
necessary?

The Network names definitely need to be globally unique as they are part 
of a global topology model.  And by implication the NSAs representing 
those networks should be uniquely addressible (though I contend they 
need/ought not be defined as the same thing).   The the CS protocol, 
however, only talks between PA and RA.  There is no inherent global 
scope in this relationship, and as we concluded in Hong Kong, this 
relationship only needs to be locally unique.

I believe it would significantly simplify user codes if user RAs could 
dispense with constructing a verifyably global unique NSA_IDs, and 
simply ask the PA to respond with a locally unique NSAID that will work 
for the life of this connection conversation.

Second, what if an "NSA" deliberately hijacks an established Network 
name [NSA-ID]?   How do we insure this does not occur?   How do we 
authenticate an NSA as being the proper agent to represents a specific 
[real] network domain?

Thoughts?   (I know we have authenticated sessions between trusted NSAs, 
but that doesn't in itself associate a network with an NSA...or more 
accurately, it doesn't preclude that agent from acting as another 
Network.)  I think we need some specific language on this...

Regards
Jerry