Subject: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-heartbeat

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:05:25 +0200

I have reviewed this specification. I did find a few issues, the most 
serious of which relates to some additional information that you should 
put to the Security Considerations section. But overall, the issues were 
minor, so I have sent the draft forward to IETF Last Call; but please 
submit a new version in the next couple of days to fix the problems from 
my review.

Issues:

> The sequence number field in the unsolicited Heartbeat Response is 
> ignored and no response to necessary

no response is?

>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>                                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>                                      |            Reserved       |U|R|
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |                       Sequence Number                         |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   

If you follow the style of message definitions from RFC 3775, you should 
include the
"Mobility Options" header at the end, as well as describe what options 
are required
or appropriate.

>  Security Considerations

The security considerations are written in the "just use IPsec" style, 
which has gotten us into trouble in the past... However, in this case 
you are employing MH messages, which means that the security policy 
configuration from RFC 3776 and so on should all be directly applicable. 
You should state this up front: E.g., "RFCs such and such describe how 
to protect Mobile IPv6 Binding Update and Acknowledgment signaling with 
IPsec. The Heartbeat message defined in this specification is merely 
another subtype of the same Mobility Header protocol that is already 
under being protected by IPsec. Therefore, protecting this additional 
message is possible using the mechanisms and security policy models from 
these RFCs."

> from the same space as the 'MH Type' field
... from the 'MH Type' name space ...

Same issue in the paragraph following this.

Also, the how-to-use-IPsec-with-Mobile-IPv6 RFCs need to be normative 
references.

Jari

---

From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:59:56 -0500

Hi Jari,

I just submitted version 04 that addresses the comments you had.

Vijay 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:05 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-heartbeat
> 
> >                                      |            Reserved  
>      |U|R|
> >      |                       Sequence Number                
>          |
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>