1. Rating
   Technical quality
     4-5: Contents are completely correct. There are no errors.
As far as I could tell, there seem to be no errors.

   Originality
     3: No significantly new ideas, but good analysis of current state

   Editorial quality
     4: Mostly understandable, some improvements identified below

   Overall grade (overall, how do you rate this paper?)
     3-4: Very good

   Confidence (how confident are you about this review?)
     2: I have some general knowledge of this subject

2. Detailed comments

   2a. Technical quality
The paper presents a review on the ways to achieve confidential 
communication channel between devices based on pre-shared key. The paper 
seems like a rather good technical description of the selected methods. 
Some readability and motivation issues are suggested for improving the 
paper. The methods selected for the paper to go through are supposedly 
covering the most important techonologies, but the motivation for 
the selection should be more clearly stated. E.g. why only deal with 
issues with pre-shared key. What about Bluetooth, for example?

   2b. Originality
The paper does not really provide new information or knowledge, but it 
seems to be technically correct as far as I know. Again, reference to 
things left out of the paper would help to enhance the paper.

   2c. Editorial quality

Pretty well written, ok language, easy to read.

Table for abbreviations is a bit exceptional. It would be better to 
explain the abbreviations in the body text immediately as they are first 
introduced.

The starting sentences of the Introduction would be quite important. In 
this paper, the Introduction seems to start a bit 'in the middle' - the 
reader is a bit curious what the work is related to, what is the 
motivation ,and why the selections for this particular study were made.

Also, the conclusion section seems to leave the reader a bit hanging in 
the air.
However, the substance seems, for the most, to be there, just some 
refinements to how things are presented and providing the motivation 
and the paper should be a good state-of-the-art review on the chosen 
technologies.

So, just provide better grounding and motivation for the paper, which 
seems technically ok, and the paper will be ok.

Good references:

For reference for the IEEE 802.11. standard, please use the actual 
standard instead of wikipedia. Otherwise references seem ok.

-- Kristiina