Subject: [Hipsec] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-11: (with COMMENT)

From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:22:41 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm wondering if split-tunneling should be listed as a security
consideration.  I see the following in section 4.1 that might be used to
help prevent split tunneling:
   In the outbound direction, as a result of SPD processing, when
   an outbound SA is selected, the correct IP destination address for
   the peer must also be assigned.

Then also the entirety of section 4.3.

I read this as split tunneling could be an issue in some circumstances
depending on policy and it might be good to mention this in the security
considerations section.  Or let me know if I am missing some background
that would prevent split tunneling so implementers don't need to be made
aware of this consideration.

Thanks.