Early Review of draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-09
review-ietf-hip-multihoming-09-intdir-early-jiang-2016-07-05-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-hip-multihoming |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Internet Area Directorate (intdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-09-13 | |
Requested | 2016-06-21 | |
Authors | Thomas R. Henderson , Christian Vogt , Jari Arkko | |
I-D last updated | 2016-07-05 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -09
by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Derek Atkins (diff) Intdir Early review of -09 by Sheng Jiang (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -10 by Russ White (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Sheng Jiang |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-hip-multihoming by Internet Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2016-07-05 |
review-ietf-hip-multihoming-09-intdir-early-jiang-2016-07-05-00
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-09. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf .org/iesg/directorate.html. This Standards Track document provides defines host multihoming extensions to HIP. As an update document from RFC 5206, this document is well written. It is almost read for publication. I have one major and one minor comments as blow. The security analysis of this document is weak. It states that “No additional security considerations beyond those outlined in [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis] have been identified.” [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis] is dedicated for mobility. However, there are many multi-homing specific security issues. I would like to see more security analysis against security threats that are mentioned by RFC 4218, Threats Relating to IPv6 Multihoming Solutions. Minor comment (bridged from Brian Carpenter): In the Introducation Section: > Solutions for site multihoming in IPv6 networks > have been specified by the IETF shim6 working group. Shim6 is a host-based solution, so although can be used inside multihomed sites, it is not correct to call it "site multihoming". Better to write Solutions for host multihoming in multihomed IPv6 networks have been specified by the IETF shim6 working group. Best regards, Sheng