Re: [Int-dir] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-03

Hello again Tatuya,

Here is an updated description of the IPv6 address type when used as a MNID:

> 4.1.  Description of the IPv6 address type
>
>     The IPv6 address [RFC4291] is encoded as a 16 octet string containing
>     the full IPv6 address.  The IPv6 address MUST be a unicast routable
>     IPv6 address.  Multicast addresses, link-local addresses, and the
>     unspecified IPv6 address MUST NOT be used.  IPv6 Unique Local
>     Addresses (ULAs) MAY be used, as long as any security operations
>     making use of the ULA also take into account the domain in which the
>     ULA is guaranteed to be unique.

Please let me know if this resolves your concern.

Regards,
Charlie P.


On 1/15/2017 9:08 PM, Charlie Perkins wrote:
> Hello Tatuya,
>
> Thank you for the careful review.  Follow-up below:
>
>
> On 1/6/2017 11:08 AM, Tatuya Jinmei wrote:
>> - Section 4.1: I guess the MNID is generally supposed to be unique
>> (at
>>    least in the realm the ID is used), but not all IPv6 addresses are
>>    guaranteed to be unique (a link-local or unspecified address is an
>>    obvious example, an ULA may also be inappropriate depending on the
>>    usage context).  It may be better to note the fact, and you may
>> also
>>    want to impose some restrictions on the type of address that can be
>>    used as an MNID.
>
> This is correct.  I will fashion some language as suggested.  I think 
> it is appropriate to allow ULAs, but multicast and unspecified 
> addresses seem clearly inappropriate, and I am i favor of disallowing 
> link-local addresses.
.....