Subject: [Mip6] review of draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-01

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:40:11 +0300

I read this draft. Overall, I liked it and I hope we can move it
forward pretty soon. I did have some comments, however:

o  Imho, the draft reads too much like a "diff" to RFC 3776. In
    the light of eventually switching to only this, I think
    we want a more self-contained document, even if it
    means more text.

o  Question: do we want to keep the manually keyed case in
    this document? I mean we will always have RFC 3776 when
    we want to do that...

o  In some places (such as section 6 and how you explain the
    use of the AUTH payload) I got the feeling this repeats what
    IKEv2 spec already says.  Not sure what to do here, just
    an observation.

o  I'd prefer seeing recommendations like [8] as orthogonal
    to what we need for Mobile IPv6 usage of IKEv2. That is,
    I agree with what [8] is saying, but it seems like a general
    IKEv2 issue rather than something specific to Mobile IPv6.
    In some cases you want to point to such work and in some
    other cases you can leave it out; in this case I think the draft
    is unfortunately not moving very fast so you might want to
    drop the discussion about it, as eventual approval of [8]
    might change the contents.

o  Security considerations should perhaps say something about
    rules regarding the allocation of home addresses, to avoid
    hijacking them. I think you said something about that already somewhere
    else, maybe that text could move here.

o  It would also be interesting to hear more about how NAT traversal
    feature of IKEv2 could be used in the connection of this new
    spec for v4 compatibility, or whether you want to continue to use
    the K bit or MOBIKE for moving the SAs. But perhaps these are
    out of scope, I know that at least for the v4-v6 compatibility there
    are other discussions and drafts.

--Jari

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:32:55 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   
=> I fully agree: RFC 3776 has many problems which enforced a special
way to specify and describe things, and at the other hand RFC 2401bis
is a large improvement, it gives a syntax for SPD/SADB entries for
instance. IMHO the document should be rewritten from scratch with
the help of someone involved into the IKEv2/2401bis effort.

=> I already raised this concern.

=> note that the K bit is a real thing today, cf
draft-sugimoto-mip6-pfkey-migrate-00.txt...

Regards

[email-masked]