Re: [MEXT] Reviews of draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec

"Alper Yegin" <alper.yegin@yegin.org> Wed, 20 October 2010 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB073A682E for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 05:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.764
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.764 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.386, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0bPyF0SwGbIK for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 05:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4FC3A6935 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 05:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ibm (dsl.static.85-105-43069.ttnet.net.tr [85.105.168.61]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MN1SC-1P1yYY2CCG-0075us; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:51:02 -0400
From: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
To: 'Sri Gundavelli' <sgundave@cisco.com>, 'marcelo bagnulo braun' <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, mext@ietf.org
References: <4CB69A0A.2030503@it.uc3m.es> <C8DC72CF.63CC%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To:
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:50:47 +0300
Message-ID: <016f01cb7055$733d4f40$59b7edc0$@yegin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: ActrtlHA4+AG8j/wzEOGiOYcqCYPZgEnNdWAAACLSjA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:20DVzb/HBE21V2U6v7mrkmEFryik+wOxCiIQVHE/7b/ 6kd2xa4SpbNBTAC/I22H35G7CW+iSKbwHHsGSDP3HrDgg/LCl7 uUFpMHFN1DAmlg88ZbbcnM7rK7dVN0OJaqK67whMbucSAP46ld MQFn/6dU5xB+V1T/sTfhk1od0yOmNqUo+LdxCQSY3iiWYpbbAp W5jfYlE8tylS++0zqlPWKzbxDJo35fbxPVAfZtlFOQ=
Cc: 'Jari Arkko' <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Reviews of draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:49:32 -0000

RFC 4285
IESG Note

   This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.  RFC
   3775 and 3776 define Mobile IPv6 and its security mechanism.  This
   document presents an alternate security mechanism for Mobile IPv6
   used in 3GPP2 networks.

   The security properties of this mechanism have not been reviewed in
   the IETF.  Conducting this review proved difficult because the
   standards-track security mechanism for Mobile IPv6 is tightly
   integrated into the protocol; extensions to Mobile IPv6 and the core
   documents make assumptions about the properties of the security model
   without explicitly stating what assumptions are being made.  There is
   no documented service model.  

What is a "service model"? 


   Thus it is difficult to replace the
   security mechanism and see if the current protocol and future
   extensions meet appropriate security requirements both under the
   original and new security mechanisms.  If a service model for Mobile
   IPv6 security is ever formally defined and reviewed, a mechanism
   similar to this one could be produced and fully reviewed.

I'd guess we need to overcome this "service model" barrier even for the
other experimental RFCs for them to ever become a standard.