Hi Francis, Thank you for your review.
On 6/3/07 9:05 AM, "ext Francis Dupont" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Summary: Ready > > Comments: some editorial (i.e., to be handled by the RFC editor) comments: > at page 6 section 4.2: > - in FA COA mode -> in FA-COA mode > - for the FSU field, I propose to add a MUST somewhere, for instance: > are used -> MUST be used > and for each field > XXX field must be -> XXX field is > in 10 page 25 (and TOC pge 2): Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment > same? in 6.2 figure 4 page 11 Okay. (I think you mean FSU->FBU) > > In Security Considerations page 8 there is nothing about replay attacks, > i.e., how the "come back to where you was" attack is handled? In IPv6 > the protection is provided by IPsec with in the good case anti-replay, > is it done in IPv4? > RFC 3344 Section "5.7 Replay Protection for Registration Requests" specifies how replay protection is done in MIP4. It provides Timestamp-based and nonce-based protection, using the Identification field. FBU and FBack follow the Registration Request and Registration Reply formats (with different Type numbers of course). We mention that the usage of the Identification field is identical to that in RFC 3344. > Regards > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > PS: I apologize: I am late because I had to replace the disk of my notebook... No problem. Regards, -Rajeev -- http://people.nokia.net/~rajeev _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
