Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-01.txt
Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 24 June 2019 07:36 UTC
Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3560A120111; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RIVZDbhSsG1R; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A58F1200C1; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id DEBE5D6488CF80A5E7A2; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:36:19 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:36:19 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.66]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:36:16 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support@ietf.org>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-01.txt
Thread-Index: AdUqX2U/gRJA1rzAQvu2gJ7v9cJy0g==
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:36:16 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49AB345@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.31.203]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/NS6ecbBHrwjDWa_rCTEUrD1yfcQ>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-01.txt
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:36:24 -0000
Thanks Les for summary for the current status, will keep on pinging feedback from PCE WG. -Qin -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com] 发送时间: 2019年6月23日 8:58 收件人: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support@ietf.org 抄送: lsr@ietf.org 主题: RE: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-01.txt Acee - Thanx for reviving this thread. In fairness, Qin did respond - and we exchanged a couple of emails on this thread - though I would not say that we had reached closure. He also sent an email to PCE WG asking for an update on their position - but to date I have seen no response to that. So for me - this topic is still open for further discussion - both by the authors and the LSR/PCE WGs. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 1:36 PM > To: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support@ietf.org > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: > draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support- > 01.txt > > Authors - can you respond to Les' comments? > Thanks, > Acee > > On 6/3/19, 2:22 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <lsr- > bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote: > > A few - somewhat tardy - concerns about this draft. > > 1)During adoption call it was mentioned that PCE WG had not taken > a position on this draft. Since I don't follow PCE WG (apologies) I > need to ask - has that status changed?? > > 2)As discussed during the adoption call, the draft removes the > restriction specified in RFC 5088/5089 of not allowing further PCE > related advertisements in Router Capability TLV/Router Information LSA. > Acee had mentioned that he thought this was no longer a concern > because in RFC 7770 multiple OSPF Router Information LSA support was introduced. > But this is really not relevant to the reason that the restriction was > originally introduced. > > The restriction was introduced because of general concern that > using IGPs to advertise information not directly relevant to the > operation of the IGP as a routing protocol is sub-optimal and > negatively impacts the performance of the primary IGP functions. > > I am aware that this is a line that has been crossed (in modest > ways) more than once - and I am not categorically opposing the > extensions proposed - but I do wonder if this is the most appropriate > way to advertise the new attributes - particularly since this does not > solve the general case - it only applies when the PCE is also an LSR. > I think a broader discussion of this issue is warranted. > > 3)If the draft goes forward in its current form, it updates RFC > 5088/5089 in a significant way (the removal of restriction against > additional PCE related IGP > advertisements) - in which case I wonder if it would be better to > write an RFC > 5088/89 bis document rather than an extension document. > > And, BTW, do you know why the HTML version of the document has no > table of contents? > > Les > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org > > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2019 8:45 PM > > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > > Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: > draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support- > 01.txt > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > Internet-Drafts directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF. > > > > Title : IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the > PCE > > discovery > > Authors : Diego R. Lopez > > Qin Wu > > Dhruv Dhody > > Michael Wang > > Daniel King > > Filename : draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-01.txt > > Pages : 10 > > Date : 2019-06-02 > > > > Abstract: > > 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 IGP, its presence and path computation > > capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding. The IGP > > extensions for PCE discovery (RFC 5088 and RFC 5089) 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., Transport Layer > > Security(TLS), TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)) support > > capability. > > > > This document proposes new capability flag bits for PCE-CAP-FLAGS > > sub-TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement > > to distribute PCEP security support information. In addition, this > > document updates RFC 5088 and RFC 5089 to allow advertisement of > Key > > ID or Key Chain Name Sub-TLV to support TCP AO security capability. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security- > > support/ > > > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-supp > ort- > 01 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery- > security- > > support-01 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security- > > support-01 > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time > of submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
- [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-se… internet-drafts
- Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discover… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discover… Qin Wu
- Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discover… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discover… Qin Wu
- Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discover… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discover… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discover… Qin Wu
- [Lsr] 答复: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discover… Aijun Wang