Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-07
review-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-07-secdir-lc-roca-2012-11-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2012-11-26
Requested 2012-11-18
Authors Gaetan Feige , Sri Gundavelli , Xingyue Zhou , Jouni Korhonen , Rajeev Koodli
I-D last updated 2012-11-29
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vincent Roca
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 12)
Result Has nits
Completed 2012-11-29
review-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-07-secdir-lc-roca-2012-11-29-00
Hello,

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

--

This is a small document that describes PMIPv6 options to handle
traffic offloading. Taken alone, the "security considerations" section
would not be sufficient. However the RFC5213 (PMIPv6) provides
the required security guidelines. In particular it clarifies that the use
of IPsec is recommended between the MAG and LMA for signaling
messages. The present document therefore inherits from these
recommendations. I therefore agree with the authors.

A remark. It is said:
 "This option is carried like any other 
   mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213] and does not require
   any special security considerations."

It's misleading IMHO. This option does require security considerations
since an attacker, by sending fake signaling messages, may prevent
a mobile network from offloading traffic which may lead to a DoS. 
You'd better say something like:

 "This option is carried like any other 
   mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213].
   Therefore it inherits from [RFC5213] its security guidelines
   and does not require any additional security considerations."

Typos: 
Section 1:
s/its only about IPv4/it is only about IPv4/


Cheers,

   Vincent