1. Rating
 
  Technical quality
    5: Contents are completely correct. There are no errors.
    
  Originality
    4: Contains some new ideas; good analysis of current state
  
  Editorial quality
    5: Clear, understandable and easy to read

  Overall grade (overall, how do you rate this paper?)
    5: Excellent
  
  Confidence (how confident are you about this review?)
    2.5: I have quite good knowledge of this topic


2. Detailed comments

  2a. Technical quality

  The paper gives an introduction to the work done in MSEC group in IETF, 
as well as to the HIP protocol, and proposes a way to extend HIP base 
exchange to be used for multicast registration.

The chapter 3 (Key Management Protocols) has two subsections, one is about 
rekeying and the secong one is called "Key Management Protocols" again. 
It might be good to distinguish key management to smaller parts.

Section 5 says that client movement "has not been considered in the 
current key management systems". Right, the ones discussed on the 
paper (and that IETF has first concentrated on) are not designed for 
mobility. There is, however, some other work that takes mobility of 
group members into account. (I don't have references at hand now, I will 
send them later.)


  2b. Originality
      The original proposion is about combining HIP and GDOI. I believe 
this is a new approach, but I have not been following the area.

  2c. Editorial quality

The sections 1-3 discuss multicast security, chapter 4 is about HIP, and 
chapter 5 (Possible Improvements) is again about multicast security. 
I think there should be more "next we will discuss x" kind of aids 
to the reader when switching from one area to another. Now I was not 
sure at first what part the possible improvements were going to improve.


There were very few typos. The ones I noticed were:
- abstract line 9: have been -> has been
- p.5, section 3.2.3, 2nd para, line 3: IKE[] -> IKE[13]
- p.7, section numbering goes bananas