Re: [DMM] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:47 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-06: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> I think this should be an easy one to resolve:
> 
> Section 7 says: "The protection of UPN and UPA
> messages in this document follows [RFC5213] and
> [RFC7077]." I'm not clear if "follows" means the same
> as "MUST be protected using end-to-end security
> association(s) offering integrity and data origin
> authentication" (RFC5213, section 4). I think it ought
> really, as otherwise this could subvert the security
> of PMIPv6. So wouldn't it make sense to be explicit
> that these new messages have the same MUST
> requirements as binding updates. Doing that by
> repeating the quoted text from 5213 would be a fine
> way to do that, but there may be better options.

I had already read the text as requiring the same requirements as PBUs. I do not have any objections to adding further clarity. Authors, any opinions?

Thanks
Suresh