RE: [DNA-BOF] [Requirement for Optimized DAD in IPv6 Mobility] isneeded ?

[Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>]

Hi Greg

Please look into my inline comments


>I think that section 3.2 is restrictive in that
>it can be used to prevent usage of the defined
>Optimistic DAD system.
>Do you mean that the optimized DAD scheme MUST NOT
>modify standard (peer hosts?) neighbor cache operation
>If you actually mean neighbor cache entries, then
>for Optimistic DAD, in the case of collision, there
>may be a neighbour cache entry modification, although
>this will last for under a second.

Ok, I will consider it. 
This draft is only draft, so we have to update many things from 
guys feedback.

>I think that it may be worth while saying that the
>Neighbor Cache entries MUST NOT be modified in a way
>which is unrecoverable through standard RFC2462 DAD
>operation.

looks good.

>Additionally, I think that we're defining requirements
>for DAD optimization, so I don't think we can delegate
>this task to SEND WG.
>I think that as a requirement, the DAD optimization scheme
>SHOULD NOT introduce any new attacks on ND and the
>resulting schemes should be no worse than existing
>RFC 2462 DAD.

Yes. I didn't think that too. It is my intention.

>You may add a statement indicating that:

>These schemes SHOULD interwork with Secure Neighbor
>Discovery DAD mechanisms as defined in SEND WG.

looks good too.

>It is OK to move all of the security discussion to
>the security considerations section.  This section
>may have subsections.

security is also one of the requirement section. I will
consider it.

Thanks your feedback... anything else ?

Regards

Daniel