%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-pim-sm-linklocal instead of this I-D.
@techreport{atwood-pim-sm-linklocal-01,
    number =    {draft-atwood-pim-sm-linklocal-01},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-atwood-pim-sm-linklocal/01/},
    author =    {J. William Atwood and Salekul Islam},
    title =     {{Security Issues in PIM-SM Link-local Messages}},
    pagetotal = 11,
    year =      2006,
    month =     jun,
    day =       27,
    abstract =  {This document proposes some additions to the specification of the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Protocol regarding security issues of its link-local messages. Although the new specifications for IPsec architecture (RFC 4301) and Authorization Header (RFC 4302) permit the use of anti-replay, they counsel against its use for multi-sender, multicast Security Associations. This makes PIM-SM vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) attack. In this document, a new proposal is presented to protect PIM link-local messages while activating the anti-replay mechanism as well. This proposal builds on the new Security Association lookup method that has been specified in RFC 4301 and RFC 4302.},
}