Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-13

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2019-11-07
Requested 2019-10-24
Authors Yiqun Cai, Heidi Ou, Sri Vallepalli, mankamana mishra, Stig Venaas, Andy Green
Draft last updated 2019-11-14
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -13 by Michael Scharf (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carl Wallace
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pim-drlb-13-secdir-lc-wallace-2019-11-14
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 13 (document currently at 15)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2019-11-09


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 defines an extension to the PIM-SM protocol to allow some responsibilities of is Designated Router to be distributed amongst a set of routers instead of the router elected as DR. 

The document is well written and has clear examples. The security considerations references those of the DR as applicable to the new mechanism. This seems fine.  One minor comment, the last sentence in the operational considerations section seemed odd to me. It wasn't clear to me why migration between different hash algorithms is not considered in this document (or why this is much different from changes in DR priority, which is also required to be considered as a GDR candidate). 

The document is ready to my eye.