Early Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12

Request Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Early Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2016-09-13
Requested 2016-06-21
Draft last updated 2016-12-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Orit Levin (diff)
Intdir Early review of -12 by Jean-Michel Combes (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jean-Michel Combes
State Completed
Review review-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12-intdir-early-combes-2016-12-07
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 14)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2016-12-07


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

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

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,