Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-08

From: Carl Wallace <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:47:06 -0500

It's probably more a style thing than anything else.  I don't like to see
requirements introduced in the security considerations section.  I do not
feel particularly strongly about this though.

On 2/29/12 11:18 PM, "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>Hi Carl,
>  Thanks for your review. I will add the reference to RFC4832 like you
>stated. Is there a specific reason why you prefer the security related
>text be moved to the body of the document instead of the Security
>Considerations section?
>
>Regards
>Suresh
>
>On 02/28/2012 08:00 AM, Carl Wallace wrote:
>> 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 document proposes initiation, utilization and termination
>>mechanisms
>> for localized routing between mobile access gateways within a proxy
>>mobile
>> IPv6 domain.  The security considerations section introduces (for this
>> document) the requirement for IPSec and the reuse of a security
>> association described in RFC 5213.  This text belongs in the body of the
>> document in my opinion, with the security considerations possibly
>>changed
>> to simply reference RFC 4832 and RFC 5213 security considerations.
>> 	
>> 
>> 
>