Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02
review-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02-secdir-lc-johansson-2013-09-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-09-10
Requested 2013-08-22
Authors Lianshu Zheng , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Rishabh Parekh
I-D last updated 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2013-09-18)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -02 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -02 by Leif Johansson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Leif Johansson
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 03)
Result Has nits
Completed 2013-09-12
review-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02-secdir-lc-johansson-2013-09-12-00
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