[Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt
Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Sat, 01 September 2007 20:12 UTC
Return-path: <mip6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IRZKt-0004BB-Lx; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:12:51 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IRZKs-00047x-Pe for mip6@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:12:50 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IRZKr-0003cp-85 for mip6@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:12:50 -0400
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Sep 2007 20:12:47 -0000
Received: from p5498697A.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.1.4]) [84.152.105.122] by mail.gmx.net (mp036) with SMTP; 01 Sep 2007 22:12:47 +0200
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/x1Qgl6qXxtUDbSwWHjVI9KFCIurhjnnfm6NGe0O D1DMdJYTQJRFVg
Message-ID: <46D9C7B7.8080408@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:12:39 +0200
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mobile IPv6 Mailing List <mip6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Subject: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: mip6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mip6.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mip6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mip6-bounces@ietf.org
Re-reading draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt I noticed a couple of things. * The references are out of date Example: draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-03.txt become RFC 4283 in 2005. * RFC 3344 is a normative reference without a reason * More RFC 2119 language is needed. When someone reads through the text then the places are pretty obvious. I could list them, if someone cares. * Replay Protection: There is no mandatory to implement replay protection technique. To me it seems that only the timestamp based replay protection really seems to be usable when used in combination with the AAA infrastructure. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ Mip6 mailing list Mip6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
- [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00… Hannes Tschofenig
- RE: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bi… Ahmad Muhanna
- RE: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bi… Chowdhury, Kuntal
- Re: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bi… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bi… Hannes Tschofenig
- RE: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bi… Chowdhury, Kuntal