Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-
|Requested rev.||no specific revision (document currently at 04)|
|Type||Last Call Review|
|Team||Security Area Directorate (secdir)|
|Draft last updated||2009-08-18|
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Taylor Yu
Secdir Telechat review of -?? by Taylor Yu
The Security Considerations section states: The security considerations of the Diameter Base protocol [RFC3588], Diameter EAP application [RFC4072], Diameter NASREQ application [RFC4005] and Diameter Mobile IPv6 integrated scenario bootstrapping [RFC5447] are applicable to this document. Should a reference to RFC 4832 (Security Threats to NETLMM) be included here? There appear to be no obvious additional security considerations beyond those mentioned in the above documents. (if including the suggested additional citation) In general, the Diameter messages may be transported between the HA and the Diameter server via one or more AAA brokers or Diameter agents. In this case the HA to the Diameter server AAA communication rely on the security properties of the intermediate AAA brokers and Diameter agents (such as proxies). "HA" as used above is not defined in the document, and is used nowhere else in the document. Is it a Home Agent? (which is not really otherwise mentioned in this document) Editorial: "DER" and "DEA" are not defined. I am fairly sure that "DER" does not mean "Distinguished Encoding Rules" in this document. The caption for Figure 4 crosses a page break, making it appear truncated. The term "Local Mobility Anchor" is confusing to me, because it seems to imply an entity that is local to the Mobile Node, but the term appears well-established in earlier documents. draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support is now on revision #14, but is cited as "-11".