Re: [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-02

[Dave Rice <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
Thanks for this review.

> On Jun 1, 2018, at 5:23 AM, Liang Xia <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Liang Xia
> Review result: Ready
> 
> The whole draft is in good shape and well written.
> Some nits:
> 1. every word should start with capital letter for the section title;
> 2. section 2.2.4: / ceil(a) the largest integer less than or equal to a /
> ceil(a) the smallest integer larger than or equal to a / 3. section 3.7.2:
> [ISO.15444-1.2016]? 4. section 12.1: [I-D.ietf-cellar-ffv1]? 5. section 12.2:
> should all the RFC move to the Normative References (section 12.1)?

I added a pull request at https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFV1/pull/116 <https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFV1/pull/116> that addresses many of these issues.

Regarding 
> section 12.1: [I-D.ietf-cellar-ffv1]?
I found that Media Type Definitions within RFC’s tend to be self-referencing. Since there is no RFC number here on this draft, I’ve used [I-D.ietf-cellar-ffv1] as a temporary self reference.

> Issues for clarification:
> In Security Considerations, besides the DoS attacks brought by the malicious
> payloads, is there any other kinds of attack possibly? For example, virus or
> worm are hidden in the malicious payloads to attack the system for more
> damages? Does it make sense and what's the consideration?

I haven’t done any update for this. Nudge to Michael Niedermayer and Jérôme Martinez.
Best Regards,
Dave Rice