Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-06

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 20 May 2010 05:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D423A6C96; Wed, 19 May 2010 22:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.448, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
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 0ddNVLNUydiv; Wed, 19 May 2010 22:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C193A6C8F; Wed, 19 May 2010 22:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F7A2CEB5; Thu, 20 May 2010 08:10:37 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0pCdESXZaF2Q; Thu, 20 May 2010 08:10:36 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A560C2CD07; Thu, 20 May 2010 08:10:36 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4BF4C44B.9010806@piuha.net>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 08:10:35 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTilFNJasIBtqY5sHKaGC_Th7pC5VMk3YZ4rIkpu0@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilFNJasIBtqY5sHKaGC_Th7pC5VMk3YZ4rIkpu0@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gerardog@qualcomm.com, Jonne Soininen <jonne.soininen@nsn.com>, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-06
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 05:11:04 -0000

Donald,

Thanks for your review.

Jari

Donald Eastlake kirjoitti:
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
just like any other last call comments.

This is an Informational draft discussing various IPv6 mobility
scenarios that involve interactions between MIPv6 and Proxy MIPv6
(PMIPv6). For security considerations, the draft refers to the
comprehensive Security Considerations section of RFC 3775 (Mobility
Support in IPv6) and to RFC 4832 (Security Threats to Network-Based
Localized Mobility Managemen). I am not an expert in this area and
found the shear amount of detail in this draft, which was produced by
merging 4 different earlier drafts, somewhat confusing. However, it
looks to me like the referenced security considerations sections and
the discussions in the draft cover security adequately.


Typos/Grammer:

Section 3, second sentence:
OLD
                                               This document does not
                                                             ^^^^
   only focus on scenarios where the two protocols are used by the same
   mobile node to manage local and global mobility, but it investigates
                                                        ^^
   also more complex scenarios where the protocols are more tightly
   ^^^^
NEW
                                                This document not
   only focuses on scenarios where the two protocols are used by the same
   mobile node to manage local and global mobility, but also investigates
   more complex scenarios where the protocols are more tightly


Section 3, page 9, line 4:
OLD
   depicted in the figure.  However, the LMA and HA can be also
                                                        ^^^^^^^
NEW
   depicted in the figure.  However, the LMA and HA can also be


Thanks,
Donald
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
Milford, MA 01757 USA