Hi Tony, At first, sorry for the delayed reply and thanks for your comments.
2009/3/27 Tony Cheneau <[email protected]>: > Hello, > > I've read draft-ietf-csi-sndp-prob-01.txt. I think the document is in a good > shape. Still I have some small questions and comments. > > - Figure 3, the box isn't drawn correctly (misaligned dashes) OK. > > - section 3.3: > Concerning the DAD issue on ND proxy, I think there might be a problem > too when there is a real collision. The node defending its address will > send a NA that might go thought the proxy. The proxy may not be > authorized to modify this NA if it is protected by SEND. > Does this make sense ? Or will this case never happen ? IMHO, this case is already include in the previous sections because DAD NA message is the same as a Solicited NA message. > > - section 4.2.5: s/are are/are/ OK. > > - section 4.2.6: > Movement between segments could be controlled with increasing > certificate sequence numbers and timestamps. The timestamp of the > root authority (in this case, the CGA address owner) would be most > significant. Where ties exist, the shortest chain would supercede, > as this would indicate a proxy closer to the proxied node. > > I don't understand the first sentence. Can you detail ? (Are you referring > to > serial numbers ?) Yes: this is in fact serial numbers. I will modify it. Thanks again for the comments! Cheers. JMC. > > Regards, > Tony Cheneau > _______________________________________________ CGA-EXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
