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

[Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>]

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
> >