Re: [MEXT] Review of I-D draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec-06

<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Thu, 20 January 2011 21:54 UTC

From: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
To: jan@go6.si, mext@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] Review of I-D draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec-06
Thread-Index: AQHLuH0JE4MPNYPORU+/IPQRfHjdipPZ804A
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:55:56 +0000
Message-ID: <C95E0B38.CD87%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D37F38A.4080602@go6.si>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <deba43fd-163b-490c-aedf-520f02fd7218>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Review of I-D draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec-06
Precedence: list

Thanks for the review.

Support for route-optimization with the proposed security solution in this
I-D is possible.
We will describe this in more details in the next rev while also
addressing some of your other comments..

-Raj

On 1/20/11 2:34 AM, "ext Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan@go6.si> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>It took me quite long to write this review, but finally, here it is :)
>
>Review comments:
>
>In general the proposal of using an alternative to IPsec and IKEv2
>seems quite okay. The main purpose of Mobile IPv6 is to enable
>mobility at the IP layer and hence using TLS which is much more widely
>implemented and deployed for use to secure the signaling is good.
>
>More specific comments:
>
>- The proposal introduces a new element called HAC. In terms of
>   deployments such a network element may become central for
>   bootstrapping Mobile IPv6. The I-D states that the HAC could be
>   co-located with the HA. In reality, the HAC should be a standalone
>   entity which interacts with AAA and policy engines in a network.
>
>- TLS is widely used for security in the Internet today. Hence the use
>   of TLS does not weaken mobile IPv6 security. TLS is also used only
>   for bootstrapping and not for securing the signaling or traffic.
>
>- Describe the steps in figure 1.
>
>- The security association scope says that it describes whether the SA
>   is only for signaling or for data as well. Would be useful to make
>   it more explicit.
>
>- Route optimization is an important feature of Mobile IPv6. Hence
>   this alternate security solution should explain how the route
>   optimization signaling messages are secured.
>
>- Unclear why HTTP headers (Sec 8.2) are being reserved. Could not
>   really understand the purpose.
>
>- Message details are fairly complete and hence should be
>   implementable.
>
>In summary, the draft is well written and complete and should be
>considered for standardization.
>
>I'm using DSMIP6-TLS implementations on N900 phone and Ubuntu Linux
>laptop in everyday life and it seems to work quite well. There are still
>some implementation issues that needs to be fixed, but overall feeling
>is very satisfactory.
>
>Regards, Jan Zorz
>go6.si
>_______________________________________________
>MEXT mailing list
>MEXT@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

[MEXT] Review of I-D draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-alt… Jan Zorz @ go6.si
Re: [MEXT] Review of I-D draft-korhonen-mext-mip6… jouni korhonen
Re: [MEXT] Review of I-D draft-korhonen-mext-mip6… Jan Zorz @ go6.si
Re: [MEXT] Review of I-D draft-korhonen-mext-mip6… Arnaud Ebalard
Re: [MEXT] Review of I-D draft-korhonen-mext-mip6… Basavaraj.Patil