[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AD review draft-ietf-shim6-proto -- sections 1 through 4

Hi Jari,

thanks for the review

w.r.t. you comment, please see below...

El 10/09/2007, a las 19:06, Jari Arkko escribió:



Hi all,

I have started my AD review of this document. Please
find comments relating to Sections 1 through 4 below,
along with some tool-generated editorial issues.

Substantial:

Generally speaking I'm happy with the parts that I have
read so far. The text is easy to read and the reader
gets an accurate understanding of the Shim6 protocol,
its capabilities and limitations.

The only substantial question mark that I had was
here:


However, the precise
interaction between Mobile IPv6 and Shim6 is for further study, but
it might make sense to have Mobile IPv6 operate on locators as well,
meaning that the shim would be layered on top of the MIPv6 mechanism.


I worry that there's a circular dependency somewhere between
IPsec, Shim6, and MIPv6 if they all require something about
the placement of other layers on top or under them. Or is
Shim6 capable to be configured to run in different places
in the stack, e.g., inside and outside a tunnel, depending on
what the network manager wants?

This may be explained somewhere else...
section 5.1 of the applicability draft deals with this specific issue, would that address your concerns?
for your convenience, the applicability draft is at http:// www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-shim6-applicability-03.txt 

Regards, marcelo



Editorial:

       Figure 31: ICMP error handling with payload  extension header


Extra space.
== Unused Reference: '4' is defined on line 5394, but no explicit reference 
     was found in the text
== Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 5397, but no explicit reference 
     was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: '12' is defined on line 5425, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: '24' is defined on line 5464, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: '25' is defined on line 5469, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: '27' is defined on line 5476, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

Please add references or remove the documents.
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2463 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 4443) 

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
     draft-ietf-shim6-hba-02

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
     draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-07

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
     draft-ietf-shim6-applicability-02

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
     draft-ietf-hip-base-07
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-mobike-protocol has been published as RFC 
     4555


Please use the updated references.


                       was computed.  See [6]., [8].

Extra "."


   A, B, and C are hosts.  X is a potentially malicious host.

   ...

   CT(X) is a context tag assigned by X.


Wouldn't CT(A) be a more appropriate notation? Or are you
specifically saying that its the malicious host?

Jari