Last Call Review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-05
review-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-05-genart-lc-sparks-2016-08-08-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2016-08-11 | |
| Requested | 2016-07-28 | |
| Authors | Jiazi Yi , Thomas H. Clausen , Ulrich Herberg | |
| Draft last updated | 2016-08-08 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by
Robert Sparks
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Robert Sparks (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Eric Gray (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-05-genart-lc-sparks-2016-08-08
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Ready with Nits | |
| Completed | 2016-08-08 |
review-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-05-genart-lc-sparks-2016-08-08-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART and secdir reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. The secdir does the same for the security area directors. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information on Gen-Art, please see the FAQ at < https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. For moe information on secdir, see the wiki at < https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview > Document: draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-05 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 8 Aug 2016 IETF LC End Date: 11 Aug 2016 IESG Telechat date: 18 Aug 2016 Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC This draft provides a discussion of vulnerabilities in Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), focusing on attacking the Duplicate Packet Detection and Relay Set Selection mechanisms. It positions itself as being useful information for those deploying SMF as currently defined. It does not propose mitigations, but does have a section that identifies potential future work that might. I have sent several editorial nits directly to the authors.