Hi Stephen, > On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:47 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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.
I had already read the text as requiring the same requirements as PBUs. I do not have any objections to adding further clarity. Authors, any opinions? Thanks Suresh
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
