RE: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt

Hi Hannes,
Please see comment inline.

Regards,
Ahmad

> Subject: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt
> 
> 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 * The references are out of date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.

[Ahmad]
I absolutely agree here. timestamp MUST be mandated using the
authentication option mechanism since sequence number does not provide a
reliable replay protection outside dynamic IPsec.

> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mip6 mailing list
> Mip6@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
> 

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6