Subject: [secdir] draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-06

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:42:44 -0400

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document specifies how to delegate IPv6 prefixes to a Mobile
Router in a Mobile Network.

It has a reasonably extensive Security Considerations section and
appears to appropriately specify protective measures against plausible
threats. In particular, when the Mobile Router is away from home, it
mandates the use of IPsec a la MIPv6. Possibly someone more familiar
with IPsec should look at the specified Security Policy Database and
Security Association Database.

Trivia:

Section 3.1, page 5, "...currently used by the is about to expire..."
? perhaps "...by the Mobile Node..."

"an Mobile" -> "a Mobile"

Various acronyms, such as BU, HoA, while usually explained when first
used, are missing from Section 2. HoA is not explained at all. Even
better would be to vastly reduce the overuse of acronyms throughout
this document.

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 00:38:52 +0200

Hi Donald,

Thanks for the comments. See below inline.

> ? perhaps "...by the Mobile Node..."

Thanks, it should say "by the Mobile Router".

> "an Mobile" -> "a Mobile"

Right.

> better would be to vastly reduce the overuse of acronyms throughout

Agree. This has been pointed out by other reviewers and we'll improve
this.

Thanks again.

Kind Regards,

Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67