Re: [secdir] Security directorate review of draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Authors,
 
Could you please engage with Magnus to either address his concerns in a new
revision, or explain to him why that would not be necessary/appropriate.
 
Thanks,
Adrian
 
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Magnus
Nyström
Sent: 08 November 2013 04:16
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Security directorate review of draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking [Was:
Re: Security directorate reveiw of draft-asaeda-mboned-explicit-tracking
 
 
[I did it again ... Sorry about the incorrect Subject: title, I used the
original draft name, the current name is of course
draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking.]
 
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Magnus Nyström <[e-mail]> wrote:
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.

This document describes a tracking function for multicast routers and proxies,
intended to reduce latencies and network traffic, among other things.
The document seems well written but the security considerations sections makes
vague references to "serious threats" that may be introduced by malicious hosts
on the network yet only states that "abuse" can be mitigated by limiting the
amount of information a router can store (which seems like a given anyway?). It
would be good if the document enumerated the "serious threats" and their
mitigations.

-- Magnus 



-- 
-- Magnus