[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02
Leif Johansson <leifj@sunet.se> Thu, 05 September 2013 18:58 UTC
Return-Path: <leifj@sunet.se>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2626821F9E3F for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rkr5K6GVNWI7 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e-mailfilter01.sunet.se (e-mailfilter01.sunet.se [IPv6:2001:6b0:8:2::201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3C621F9B91 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.sunet.se (smtp1.sunet.se [IPv6:2001:6b0:8:2::214]) by e-mailfilter01.sunet.se (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id r85IwDea001559 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 5 Sep 2013 20:58:13 +0200
Received: from kerio.sunet.se (kerio.sunet.se [192.36.171.210]) by smtp1.sunet.se (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r85IwAlI026781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Sep 2013 20:58:12 +0200 (CEST)
X-Footer: c3VuZXQuc2U=
Received: from [10.0.0.244] ([62.102.145.131]) (authenticated user leifj@sunet.se) by kerio.sunet.se (Kerio Connect 8.1.2) (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES256-SHA (256 bits)); Thu, 5 Sep 2013 20:58:09 +0200
Message-ID: <5228D440.8040005@sunet.se>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 20:58:08 +0200
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@sunet.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report.all@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: outbound, sunet-se:default, base:default, @@RPTN)
X-CanIt-Geo: ip=192.36.171.210; country=SE; latitude=62.0000; longitude=15.0000; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=62.0000,15.0000&z=6
X-CanItPRO-Stream: outbound-sunet-se:outbound (inherits from outbound-sunet-se:default, sunet-se:default, base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 09KluWd3U - 5e3351abe3a3 - 20130905
X-CanIt-Archive-Cluster: PfMRe/vJWMiXwM2YIH5BVExnUnw
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com)
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 18:58:24 -0000
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 is an implementation report for PIM-SM to provide supporting documentation for progressing PIM-SM to Internet Standard. Note: I am in no way an expert on multicast. Nit: The document is inconsistent when it comes to spelling out abbreviations, eg RP is never spelled out. The only other comment I have is that the security considerations section says "no implications" while 2.4 argues for the removal of PMBR which features in the security implications section of RFC4601. I don't know if the removal of PMBR makes things better or worse but the security considerations section maybe should provide a word or two of comment on this. Cheers Leif
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-… Leif Johansson