Subject: [DMM] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:47:25 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this should be an easy one to resolve:

Section 7 says: "The protection of UPN and UPA
messages in this document follows [RFC5213] and
[RFC7077]." I'm not clear if "follows" means the same
as "MUST be protected using end-to-end security
association(s) offering integrity and data origin
authentication" (RFC5213, section 4). I think it ought
really, as otherwise this could subvert the security
of PMIPv6. So wouldn't it make sense to be explicit
that these new messages have the same MUST
requirements as binding updates. Doing that by
repeating the quoted text from 5213 would be a fine
way to do that, but there may be better options.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- It might also be worth saying in section 7 that to
provision a new HNP someone has to have setup all the
IPsec stuff for that.