Hi,

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

It appears that the issue that I brought up in my early review of the draft has not been addressed. The draft continues to use the term nonce in a way that is not consistent with RFC 4949. This is likely not an operational problem as the rules defined for using it are well described in the document. This could be addressed by stating that a nonce is generated in the Map-Request, and the value of the nonce is used in subsequent exchanges.

The TSVART reviewer of the draft seems to be much more familiar with LISP than I, and brings up a lot of security issues. I would like to see those issues addressed.

Regards,
Chris