[pim] Re: draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps-07 iet f last call Secdir review

Joseph,

Thanks for your review! We uploaded draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps-08 and updated the Security Considerations section based on your feedback:

Zeroconf multicast address allocation mechanisms are vulnerable to accidental or malicious address collisions, which may lead to denial of service or misdirection of traffic. Solutions derived from these requirements should include measures for collision detection, conflict resolution, and prevention of unauthorized address use. Specific security mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.

Best Regards,

Nate

From: Joseph Salowey via Datatracker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 17:18
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps-07 ietf last call Secdir review

Document: draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps Title: Zeroconf Multicast Address Allocation Problem Statement and Requirements Reviewer: Joseph Salowey Review result: Has Issues I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's


Document: draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps

Title: Zeroconf Multicast Address Allocation Problem Statement and Requirements

Reviewer: Joseph Salowey

Review result: Has Issues



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.



The summary of the review is the document has issues.



This document is providing requirements for Zeroconf Multicast Address

Allocation. The document's security considerations section is rather light in

that is says security will be addressed by future documents. It seems that a

requirements document should cover security aspects.



For example, it seems that address collisions could cause denial of services

issues and perhaps other security issues. It seems these consequences should be

discussed in the security considerations along with considerations for what

solutions should address to thwart and attacker from reaching these outcomes.



I don't think it needs to be a lot of text, but some guidance for solutions

derived from this document would be good.





_______________________________________________

pim mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

________________________________

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be Garmin confidential and/or Garmin legally privileged. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication (including attachments) by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Thank you.

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]