[Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I appreciate all of the references to the various security considerations in
Section 7.  My primary question in reading this section was “Does the use of
PCE in an ACTN introduce any additional vulnerabilities/threats/residual risk
and how is this addressed?” as this document was focused on the applicability
of PCE in ACTN.

(1) I wasn’t sure how [RFC5440] and [RFC6952] were applying specifically to the
ACTN use case.

(2) I wasn’t sure how to use the guidance in the third paragraph, “As per
[RFC8453] …”.  It notes that [RFC8453] outlines both needed security properties
and threats; and reiterates that [RFC8453] states that ACTN should have “rich
security features”.  The link and relevance to PCE was not evident.