I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Document: draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-ps-04.txt
Intended Status: Informational (WG submission)
Shepherding AD: Margaret Wasserman
Review Trigger: IESG Telechat 2 March 2006
Summary:
This document is almost ready for Informational. There are a small
number of very minor issues and questions plus a fair number of
editorial nits which I think can all be handled by RFC Editor notes and
during copy editing.
Review:
Generally this document is in good shape.
Minor Issues and Questions:
s3, 1st bullet: If boostrapping creates an IKE pre-shared secret, isn't
that enough to be able to create the SA between HA and MN? Do you need
both? Or does it depend on whether RFC4285 is being used or not?
s5.2.1: Is the phrase 'traditional AAA infrastructure' sufficiently
well-understood? I think it may need a few hints as what is traditional
will change over time!
s5.2.2: I would have thought this section belong with 5.1 (addressing)
rather then 5.2 (security infrastructure).
s6, para 3: The phrase 'is not within the geographical area' doesn't
quite cover the case. An ASP may be present in the geographical area but
not accessible and it sounds as if it only applies to ASPs who are
regionally limited. Something like 'is not directly usable for
communication at the current location of the MN' might be better.
s9.2: Should also mention (in last para) the need for replacement of
algorithms as and when attacks become possible.
Editorial nits:
s1: s/mobile node/mobile node (MN)/ (the abbreviation is currently set
up in s1.2 but is used in s1.1).
s1.2: s/subsequent bootstrapping/the need for subsequent bootstrapping/
s1.3, trust relationship: s/two parties/the two parties/
s2: s/in the Mobile IPv6/in Mobile IPv6/
s2: s/Yet another assumption is that some/Some/
s2: Expand acronym NAI.
s3: The last two bullets need to be slightly rephrased to make them into
goals:
- next to last bullet: s/needs to be/must be/
- last bullet replaced with: The solution should be applicable to all
feasible deployment
scenarios that can be envisaged, along with
the relevant
authentication/authorization models.
s5.1.2, para 6: s/istance/instance/
s5.1.3, title: s/Management requirements/Management Requirements/
s5.2.1, para 3: s/issue/send/
s6 para 1: s/as it pertains/as they pertain/
s7, last para: The sentence 'The seed information is described further
in Section 8.' should probably be a paragraph on its own rather than
tacked onto the second bullet point.
s7.1, para 1: s/an MSA , called also the home MSP,/an MSA, also called
the home MSP,/
s7.3, para 1: s/model support/model supported/
s7.3, para 2: I don't understand the bracketed item '(MSA for instance
a corporate network)'
s7.3, para 2: s/specializing on this service/specializing in this service/
s7.4: s/MIP6/MIPv6/ (2 places)
s8, title: s/Parameters for authentication/Parameters for Authentication/
s8, para 1: s/not.If/not. If/, s/services../services./
s8: Expand FQDN.
s8, next to last para of parameter Set 1: s/with other entity/with
another entity/
s8, last para of parameter Set 1: s/If authentication protocol/If the
authentication protocol/
s8, last para of parameter Set 1: s/with home agent/with the home agent/
s9.1, para 1: s/in the establishing the SA/in establishing the SA/
s9.1, para 2: s/its home agent(s) ./its home agent(s)./
s9.1, last para: s/this in order to that/this in order that/
s9.2, 2nd bullet: s/disrupts/disrupt/
s9.2, last para: I am not sure what 'including if the keys are
generated from the same authentication credentials' is
trying to say
(but it needs a full stop at the end in any case.)
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
