Early Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12
review-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12-intdir-early-combes-2016-12-07-00

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12. 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

o Mobile IP(v6) v.s. HIP
At first, I prefer to be frank: I must admit that I am not pro-HIP ...
HIP,  IMHO, looks like Mobile IP(v6) (modulo some parameters) with many
drawbacks ...

Now, please, trust me, my review has been done with a _neutral_ point of
view.

o HIP Security
I didn't review HIP basis RFCs/drafts, meaning that my review is based on
the fact that security reviews have already been done.

o draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12

My main concern is the use of an Informative RFC to provide security to the
protocol described inside this document:
Section 5,6, "To prevent redirection-based flooding attacks, the use of a
Credit-Based Authorization (CBA) approach MUST be used when a host sends
data to an UNVERIFIED locator."

Hope that helps,

Best regards,

JMC.