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

Re: Internal WG Review: MIPv6 Signaling and Handoff Optimization (mipshop)

two "I'd prefer it done this way" changes suggested, neither critical to me:

--On 19. september 2003 08:57 +0200 gabriel montenegro <gab@sun.com> wrote:

Any packets between the correspondent node
and the mobile node sent or in-flight during this time arrive at the
old care of address, where they are dropped since the mobile node no
longer has link connectivity with the old subnet.

I'd prefer this formulated as
"Since many L2 mobility technologies require that the mobile node drop its link connectivity to the old subnet when moving, any packets between the correspondent node and the mobile node sent or in-flight during this time arrive at the old care of address, where they are dropped."

Additionally, there are new security issues that arise because of
the highly dynamic nature of the security relationships between, say,
a mobile node and its mobility anchor points, or--to an even greater
extreme--between a mobile node and its access routers in a fast handover
scenario. These new problems are not yet entirely understood and
may not be conclusively solved in the experimental and informational
protocol specifications produced by the working group. Nevertheless,
the working group will document the shortcomings in the corresponding
protocol specifications.  This will provide valuable feedback to other
groups or subsequent efforts.

I believe the issues (wiretap, man in the middle, denial of service) are not new at all, and fairly well understood. We just don't know how to solve them.

Suggested reformulation:

"There are security issues that arise because of the highly dynamic nature of the security relationships between, say, a mobile node and its mobility anchor points, or - to an even greater extent - between a mobile node and its access routers in a fast handover scenario.
The working group is not required to provide solutions to all these issues before publishing its experimental protocol specifications.
The working group will document the security requirements and the shortcomings of the solutions in the corresponding protocol specifications. This will provide valuable feedback to other groups or subsequent efforts."