The trigger for Prefix Renumbering is through the use of RFC7077 UPN/UPA message with the Notification Reason code of 2 (defined in RFC7077). Technically, the spec is not defining any new messages, or mobility options; its just using what is defined in RFC7077 and with a new behavior on the protocol peer. This automatically enforces RFC5213/RFC7077 security considerations and I do not see a way around. But, for highlighting those rules, either duplicating the text from 5213/7077, or pointing to those sections is fine.
Sri On 3/2/17, 7:02 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
