Re: [auth48] [IANA #1263592] [IANA] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9353 <draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-13> for your review

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the quick action, Amanda!

RFC Editor/mf

> On Jan 5, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We've changed "PCED sub-TLV Type Indicators" to "PCE Discovery (PCED) Sub-TLV Type Indicators":
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Amanda Baber
> IANA Operations Manager
> 
> On Thu Jan 05 18:14:43 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
>> IANA,
>> 
>> We would like to request a title change to a registry as described in
>> the following communication with the authors:
>> 
>>> 13) <!--[rfced] Should the title change for the following IANA
>>> registry?
>>>     We note that RFC 5086 expanded PCED on first use and capped
>>>     "sub-" when in a title.  If these changes are agreeable, we will
>>>     communicate them to IANA during AUTH48 and update the text of
>>>     this document accordingly.  See:
>>>     https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-
>>> parameters.xhtml:
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> PCED sub-TLV Type Indicator
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> PCE Discovery (PCED) Sub-TLV Type Indicator
>>> 
>>>> From RFC 5089:
>>> This document defines a new sub-TLV (named the PCE Discovery (PCED))
>>> to be carried within the IS-IS Router Capability TLV ([RFC4971]).
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: Happy with the change!
>> 
>> We will await confirmation of this change prior to moving this
>> document forward in the publication process.
>> 
>> Authors - Completion of this change by IANA will be recorded at
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9353.
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> RFC Editor/mf
>> 
>>> On Jan 2, 2023, at 11:05 AM, Acee Lindem (acee)
>>> <acee=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi RFC Editor, Dhruv,
>>> 
>>> I concur with Dhruv on thanking the RFC Editors for the excellent
>>> work!!!
>>> 
>>> See a couple inlines.
>>> 
>>> From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 11:28 PM
>>> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>>> [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <lsr-
>>> [e-mail]>, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>,
>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9353 <draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-
>>> security-support-13> for your review
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> Happy New Year! Thanks for making the document better with your
>>> excellent work. See inline...
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 1:43 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Authors,
>>> 
>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>> 
>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been
>>> updated as follows:
>>> 
>>> a) Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 (“RFC
>>> Style Guide”). Please review.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in PCE discovery
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> IGP Extension for Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
>>> (PCEP) Security Capability Support in PCE Discovery (PCED)
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: This is fine.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> b) The short title (in the running header of the PDF version) has
>>> been updated.  Please review and let us know any objections.
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> IGP Extension: PCEP Security in PCED
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: No objection.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear
>>> in
>>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: Can't think of any other keywords
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) <!-- [rfced]  Please review our suggested rephrase of the
>>> following text. Does it retain your intended meaning?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> When a Path Computation Element (PCE) is a Label Switching Router
>>> (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even
>>> a server participating in the IGP, its presence and path computation
>>> capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> When a Path Computation Element (PCE) is a Label Switching Router
>>> (LSR) or a server participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol
>>> (IGP), its
>>> presence and path computation capabilities can be advertised using
>>> IGP
>>> flooding. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: I am happy with the rephrasing.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 4) <!--[rfced] Please review the updates we have made to the
>>> following
>>>     text (to avoid awkward hyphenation) to ensure the changes have
>>>     retained your intended meaning.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> As described in [RFC5440], Path Computation Element Communication
>>> Protocol (PCEP) communication privacy and integrity are important
>>> issues, as an attacker that intercepts a PCEP message could obtain
>>> sensitive information related to computed paths and resources.
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> As described in RFC 5440, privacy and
>>> integrity are important issues for communication using the Path
>>> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP); an attacker that
>>> intercepts a PCEP message could obtain sensitive information related
>>> to computed paths and resources.
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: It is fine; just s/RFC 5440/[RFC5440]/ and I noticed that in
>>> the link that is exactly what you have already :)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] We have updated this sentence to include TCP-AO as a
>>>     method to advertise PCEP security to make the text parallel to
>>>     the Abstract. Please let us know any objections.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
>>> capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and IS-IS respectively.
>>> However, these specifications lack a method to advertise PCEP
>>> security
>>> (e.g., TLS) support capability.
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
>>> capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and IS-IS, respectively.
>>> However, these specifications lack a method to advertise PCEP
>>> security
>>> (e.g., TLS and TCP-AO) support capability. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: Sure!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Is text missing here?  "...the IS-IS" what?  Protocol?
>>>     Sub-TLVs?  Please clarify.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> [RFC5089] states that the IS-IS uses the same registry as OSPF.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: Perhaps -
>>> 
>>> [RFC5089] states that the IS-IS PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV uses the
>>> same registry as OSPF.
>>> 
>>> Dhruv’s suggested text is fine.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 7) <!--[rfced] Please review the following text for clarity.  We were
>>>     unsure about the last sentence when comparing it with the IANA
>>>     actions in the IANA Considerations section and RFC 8306.  If the
>>>     suggested text is incorrect, please provide another rephrasing.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> This document updates [RFC8306] where it uses the term "OSPF PCE
>>> Capability Flag" and request assignment from OSPF Parameters registry
>>> with "PCE Capability Flag" and the IGP Parameters registry.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> This document also updates [RFC8306] by changing the term "OSPF PCE
>>> Capability Flag" to read as "Path Computation Element (PCE)
>>> Capability
>>> Flags" and to note the corresponding registry now exits in the
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: Happy with the rephrasing!
>>> 
>>> Please change “exits” to “exists”.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8) <!--[rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this
>>> document
>>>     should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container
>>>     for content that is semantically less important or tangential to
>>>     the content that surrounds it"
>>>     (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
>>> 
>>> Original (1):
>>> Note that [RFC5557] uses the term "OSPF registry" instead of the "IGP
>>> registry" whereas [RFC8623] and [RFC9168] uses the term "OSPF
>>> Parameters" instead of "IGP Parameters".
>>> 
>>> Original (2):
>>> Note that the PCEP Open message exchange is another way to discover
>>> PCE capabilities information, but in this instance, the TCP security
>>> related key parameters need to be known before the PCEP session is
>>> established and the PCEP Open messages are exchanged.  Thus, the use
>>> of the PCE Discovery and capabilities advertisement of the IGP needs
>>> to be leveraged. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: Happy to use <aside> element in the xml!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 9) <!--[rfced] The Web Portion of the RFC Style Guide
>>>     (https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/) recommends using
>>>     the abbreviated form of an abbreviation after it has been
>>>     introduced. We will implement this style for each of the
>>>     following abbreviations unless we hear objection.
>>> 
>>> PCE Discovery (PCED)
>>> TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)
>>>   Master Key Tuple (MKT) -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: No objection
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 10) <!--[rfced] The following text is difficult to follow with regard
>>> to subject/verb agreement.  Would either of the following suggestions
>>> work?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> Thus, the use of the PCE discovery and capabilities
>>> advertisement of the IGP needs to be leveraged.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps A:
>>> Thus, PCE discovery and capabilities
>>> advertisement of the IGP need to be leveraged.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps B:
>>> Thus, the leveraging of PCE discovery and capabilities
>>>  advertisement of the IGP is necessary.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: A is fine with me!
>>> 
>>> I’d suggest:
>>>     Thus, the IGP advertisement and flooding mechanisms need to be
>>>     leveraged for PCE discovery and capabilities advertisement.
>>> 
>>> However, I don’t feel that strongly and would be happy with A.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 11) <!--[rfced] We have received guidance from Benoit Claise and the
>>> YANG
>>> Doctors that "YANG module" and "YANG data model" are preferred.
>>> We have updated the text to use these forms.  Please review.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> The YANG model for PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] supports PCEP
>>> security parameters (key, key chain, and TLS).
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> The YANG module for PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] supports PCEP
>>> security parameters (key, key chain, and TLS). -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: Ack
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 12) <!--[rfced] We suggest rephrasing this sentence for the ease of
>>> the
>>>     reader. Does the following suggestion retain your intended
>>>     meaning?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> Thus, before advertising the PCEP security parameters, using the
>>> mechanism described in this document, the IGP MUST be known to
>>> provide
>>> authentication and integrity for the PCED TLV using the mechanisms
>>> defined in [RFC5304], [RFC5310] or [RFC5709].
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> Thus, before advertising the PCEP security parameters by using the
>>> mechanism described in this document, the IGP MUST be known to
>>> provide
>>> authentication and integrity for the PCED TLV using the mechanisms
>>> defined in [RFC5304], [RFC5310], or [RFC5709]. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: It does! Happy with the rephrase!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 13) <!--[rfced] Should the title change for the following IANA
>>> registry?
>>>     We note that RFC 5086 expanded PCED on first use and capped
>>>     "sub-" when in a title.  If these changes are agreeable, we will
>>>     communicate them to IANA during AUTH48 and update the text of
>>>     this document accordingly.  See:
>>>     https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-
>>> parameters.xhtml:
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> PCED sub-TLV Type Indicator
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> PCE Discovery (PCED) Sub-TLV Type Indicator
>>> 
>>>> From RFC 5089:
>>> This document defines a new sub-TLV (named the PCE Discovery (PCED))
>>> to be carried within the IS-IS Router Capability TLV ([RFC4971]).
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: Happy with the change!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] RFC 2385 has been obsoleted by RFC 5925. Would the
>>> following update be agreeable?  We note that RFC 5925 is already in
>>> the References section.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>>   As described in Section 10.2 of [RFC5440], an PCEP speaker MUST
>>>   support TCP MD5 [RFC2385], so no capability advertisement is
>>> needed
>>>   to indicate support.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>>   As described in Section 10.2 of [RFC5440], an PCEP speaker MUST
>>>   support TCP MD5 [RFC2385], so no capability advertisement is
>>> needed
>>>   to indicate support.  (Note that RFC 2385 has been obsoleted by
>>> RFC
>>>   5925.)
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: I think the reference RFC2385 itself needs to change. I see
>>> two option, we could either -
>>> 
>>> A: Not using any reference, I see published RFCs which include the
>>> term "MD5" without a reference as it is quite well-known.
>>> B: Use the reference as RFC 1321 (can also say that is obsoleted by
>>> RFC 5925)
>>> 
>>> I think it should be “a PCEP speaker” rather than “an PCEP speaker
>>> since neither “P” or “Path” would be preceded by “an”.
>>> I don’t feel strongly about the reference – FBOW MD5 is deployed.
>>> Either option is fine with me stating that it has been
>>> obsoleted.
>>> 
>>> I would like to know the opinion of the RFC editor team and others in
>>> CC!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized
>>> or left in their current order?-->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: Please alphabetize them.
>>> 
>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] We note that the URL provided for the reference
>>> below
>>>     goes to a page titled "Unicode Security Considerations" instead
>>>     of "Character Encoding Model". Please let us know how we should
>>>     update this reference.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>>   [UTR36]    Davis, M., "Unicode Technical Report #36, Character
>>>              Encoding Model",
>>>              UTR17 https://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr36/,
>>>              February 2005. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: Thanks for spotting this! Please correct this to ->
>>> 
>>> Davis, M., Ed. and M. Suignard, Ed., "Unicode Security
>>> Considerations", Unicode Technical Report #36, August 2010,
>>> <http://unicode.org/reports/tr36/>.
>>> 
>>> This is what I see in RFC 9003.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions related to
>>> terminology use
>>>     throughout the document:
>>> 
>>> a) We see the following variations with regard to spacing,
>>> hyphenation, and capping. Please review occurrences and let us know
>>> if/how these may be made consistent.
>>> 
>>> key-chain vs. keychain vs. key chain
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: key chain
>>> 
>>> Agreed. This is consistent with RFC 8177.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> key-chain name vs. Key Chain Name vs. keychain name
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: key chain name (and capitalize based on context)
>>> 
>>> Also in section 3.3.1, the field name "Key Name" should be "Key Chain
>>> Name" to align with 3.3.2
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Note we see both Key Chain Name sub-TLV and KEY-CHAIN-NAME sub-TLV as
>>> well.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: Use KEY-CHAIN-NAME sub-TLV
>>> 
>>> 
>>> b) We see the following mixed use of KeyID and Key ID (spacing).  May
>>> these be made uniform?  If so, how may we update?
>>> 
>>> ...[RFC5925] (referred to as KeyID).
>>> vs.
>>> KeyID: The one octet Key ID as per [RFC5925]
>>> (Note: we assume KEY-ID sub-TLV should remain as is).
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: My preference is for KeyID and yes when referring to sub-TLV
>>> it should be KEY-ID sub-TLV.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of
>>> the online Style Guide
>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and
>>> let
>>> us know if any changes are needed. For example, please consider
>>> whether
>>> the term "Master Key Tuple (MKT)" should be updated.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> KeyID: The one octet Key ID as per [RFC5925] to uniquely identify
>>> the Master Key Tuple (MKT). -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dhruv: No change is needed.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> Dhruv
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor/mc/mf
>>> 
>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>> 
>>> Updated 2022/12/23
>>> 
>>> RFC Author(s):
>>> --------------
>>> 
>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>> 
>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>>> 
>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
>>> your approval.
>>> 
>>> Planning your review
>>> ---------------------
>>> 
>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>> 
>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>> 
>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>>> follows:
>>> 
>>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>> 
>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>> 
>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>>> 
>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>>> coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>> 
>>> *  Content
>>> 
>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>>> change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention
>>> to:
>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>> - contact information
>>> - references
>>> 
>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>> 
>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>>> 
>>> *  Semantic markup
>>> 
>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
>>> content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
>>> and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>>> 
>>> *  Formatted output
>>> 
>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>>> reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Submitting changes
>>> ------------------
>>> 
>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as
>>> all
>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The
>>> parties
>>> include:
>>> 
>>> *  your coauthors
>>> 
>>> *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>> 
>>> *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>>>   IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>>>  responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>> 
>>> *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list
>>>   to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
>>>  list:
>>> 
>>> *  More info:
>>>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-
>>> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>>> 
>>> *  The archive itself:
>>>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>> 
>>> *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
>>>  of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>>>   If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
>>>   have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>>>   [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
>>>   its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>>> 
>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>> 
>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>> — OR —
>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>> 
>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> old text
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> new text
>>> 
>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
>>> explicit
>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>> 
>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that
>>> seem
>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of
>>> text,
>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be
>>> found in
>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream
>>> manager.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Approving for publication
>>> --------------------------
>>> 
>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email
>>> stating
>>> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Files
>>> -----
>>> 
>>> The files are available here:
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.xml
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.html
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.pdf
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.txt
>>> 
>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353-diff.html
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353-rfcdiff.html (side by
>>> side)
>>> 
>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353-xmldiff1.html
>>> 
>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
>>> diff files of the XML.
>>> 
>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.original.v2v3.xml
>>> 
>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>> only:
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.form.xml
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tracking progress
>>> -----------------
>>> 
>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9353
>>> 
>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC9353 (draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-13)
>>> 
>>> Title            : IGP extension for PCEP security capability support
>>> in PCE discovery
>>> Author(s)        : D. Lopez, Q. Wu, D. Dhody, Q. Ma, D. King
>>> WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>>> 
>