[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-source-discovery-bsr-07

Liang Xia <frank.xialiang@huawei.com> Mon, 08 January 2018 06:22 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Liang Xia <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-source-discovery-bsr.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151539253778.11305.7448095057192632663@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2018 22:22:17 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/reOxA1eVfJ6yrNZMi96NfHumGPE>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-source-discovery-bsr-07

Reviewer: Liang Xia
Review result: Has Issues

Nits:
1. In Abstract, the abbreviation is missed when the Term are firstly appeared,
such as: Sparse-Mode, Rendezvous Point; 2. Every word in the section titles
should be in the capital form

Issues:
1. In Security Considerations section,  should one sentence be "even if the
sources are actually not active"? 2. Generally, the peer authentication (by
certificate, shared key...) and the message integration protection are always
helpful to defend against the forged routers and PEM messages, even the
resulted resource consumption. But in current Security Considerations section,
there is nothing discussed about these countermeasures, even in the general
way. Suggest to consider this point personally.

[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pi… Liang Xia
Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Stig Venaas
[secdir] 答复: Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Xialiang (Frank)