All, this is just to confirm - in time for the IESG telechat tomorrow - that I am happy with the updates the author made in draft version -09 to the Security Considerations section based on our discussion. Thanks, /Magnus On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Adrian Farrel < adrian at olddog.co.uk > wrote: Authors,   Could you please engage with Magnus to either address his concerns in a new revision, or explain to him why that would not be necessary/appropriate.   Thanks, Adrian   From: iesg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto: iesg-bounces at ietf.org ] On Behalf Of Magnus Nyström Sent: 08 November 2013 04:16 To: secdir at ietf.org ; draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking at tools.ietf.org Cc: iesg at ietf.org Subject: Security directorate review of draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking [Was: Re: Security directorate reveiw of draft-asaeda-mboned-explicit-tracking     [I did it again ... Sorry about the incorrect Subject: title, I used the original draft name, the current name is of course draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking.]   On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Magnus Nyström < magnusn at gmail.com > wrote: 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 describes a tracking function for multicast routers and proxies, intended to reduce latencies and network traffic, among other things. The document seems well written but the security considerations sections makes vague references to "serious threats" that may be introduced by malicious hosts on the network yet only states that "abuse" can be mitigated by limiting the amount of information a router can store (which seems like a given anyway?). It would be good if the document enumerated the "serious threats" and their mitigations. -- Magnus -- -- Magnus -- -- Magnus