Document: draft-ietf-ssm-arch-06.txt 
Review: Spencer Dawkins
Date: 11 oktober 2004 

This document is on the right track, but is still a couple of stops
from the end of the line :-)

Introduction - The first four paragraphs aren't appropriate for an
Introduction - they are fine, but they should be in a following
section, by themselves. The fifth paragraph begins a high-level
description and justification of SSM - THAT'S what an Introduction
should look like.

4.1, top of page 7 - This section makes me think ASM listeners won't
  be able to listen to SSM traffic, but the document doesn't
  explicitly say so, one way or the other. It's a little less vague on
  SSM listeners and ASM traffic, but could be clearer here, too.

4.3 - No justification of the MUST NOT for 232.0.0.0. In general, the
      justifications in this section are weak, missing, or separated
      from specific requirements. I'm sure the authors understand all
      this stuff; the goal is that people who DIDN'T write the
      document will know how to extend it in the future.

7.1 - points out that SSM can break in the presence of SPI collisions
      by two senders, but doesn't say whether either senders or
      receivers can detect this condition automatically - they promise
      a solution, but don't describe the ability of participants to
      identify the problem in the meanwhile.

7.1 and 7.3 call out AH - my impression is that the use of AH in
    standards-track protocols is almost non-existent, and Steve
    Bellovin keeps telling me that there's no reason for AH. Probably
    good if these sections aren't too dependent on AH.

7.2 Not sure where "A router MAY have a configuration option to allow
    source routing" came from - I think this is actually an
    unintentional use of capitals; surely router requirements for
    source routing support aren't being specified in the security
    considerations section of SSM :-)

8 is called "Transition Considerations". What's the vision here -
coexistence or transition from ASM to SSM? Is it the same vision in
IPv4 and IPv6?