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

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Thu, 20 May 2010 04:25 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
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 6308A3A67F0; Wed, 19 May 2010 21:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.678, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 e+fk9AEmjV89; Wed, 19 May 2010 21:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63053A6C59; Wed, 19 May 2010 21:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwb24 with SMTP id 24so1224959wwb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 19 May 2010 21:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pdHqB4e/93TDU3iPPHS1eFhDALU2/2zzlijdvyaBI3A=; b=Q1qnrtji4v/CojdZO5ekxuw9dwTyoTN53ObESeQyngGoyGCA8Ta1C2UxG+vBDtQXf+ Zcv9kLNITh75XClUR3MC7G+KtrcOeiWWmiPlHStO678QmdWlsCzKu/uW12cWIae4JTcb U51I3iHB6LseMZziZTyejzGoQ2B3TU8wH5r5c=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=YrwGp6LP1jOTj/CxrVbXgAM43G9NYuFr2NMWFNp6uJRG8YX4efHgb2X5O/9BHJqakM fEDwlXf7qdgKfb0/wi7xv2P3qnfa6uKYE0YAKRTnr0KgTATQN64Lm0Wu6O9gBYI3ijVU Crp9SGTPjHYsWDouarW305y5YF21Uz0h4cqqE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.89.20 with SMTP id b20mr3332224wef.58.1274329510198; Wed, 19 May 2010 21:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.229.210 with HTTP; Wed, 19 May 2010 21:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 00:25:10 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTilFNJasIBtqY5sHKaGC_Th7pC5VMk3YZ4rIkpu0@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, gerardog@qualcomm.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d784e8c83ffc0486fef522
Cc: Jonne Soininen <jonne.soininen@nsn.com>
Subject: [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 04:25:22 -0000

*
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
d3e3e3@gmail.com
*