Yes,
I agree, this probably is the wrong ID to make the note in. I'll see if such a note is in the current revision of the MIPv6 draft. That should be sufficient.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Dupont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:48 AM
> To: JINMEI Tatuya / ????
> Cc: Morrow, Glenn [RICH2:C330:EXCH]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: poposed changes to the scoping architecture draft
>
>
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:53:22 -0600,
> >>>>> "Glenn Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Maybe I'm just paranoid but does anyone think that it
> should be recommended
> > that integrity protection of some sort be done when a
> mobile uses a site
> > local address as source when a packet is tunneled to the
> home site?
>
> This can be an issue, but this is the case for all type of
> tunneling,
> that is, this is not specific to mobile IPv6. At this
> moment I don't
> think we need an additional note on this issue, but if many other
> people want to note this issue explicitly, I think we can
> add a short
> note in the Security Considerations section.
>
> => I agree. In fact I can't see a reason to recommend
> integrity protection
> only when the source is site-local (i.e tunnel == external).
>
> Regards
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
