IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-15: (with COMMENT)

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Mon, 07 August 2017 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422591323A4; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 07:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 l9esH-xlHz7f; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 07:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1A2D1321B0; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 07:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DMD13227; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 14:43:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 15:43:31 +0100
Received: from BLREML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.200]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 20:13:19 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
CC: "cmargaria@juniper.net" <cmargaria@juniper.net>, "draft-ietf-pce-pceps@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-pceps@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-15: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTD2p1+w72bdEK5kmSJO8K0AUEfaJ4WkcAgAAxsYCAAF69QA==
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 14:43:19 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CB99553@blreml501-mbb>
References: <150210277776.19062.13322344032277131609.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1502102888.3075507.1065437200.4EB91616@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAKKJt-cizZGNOhJcGsAhbbd_m41ji9S-rkDJhZHnDGO+netvTA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-cizZGNOhJcGsAhbbd_m41ji9S-rkDJhZHnDGO+netvTA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.76.63]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CB99553blreml501mbb_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.59887C97.0055, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 9c0c8be9f93b630e28851189c0a2c11b
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/DtwaLBSVX3UXLM4cAwJXVnjTiwA>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 14:43:40 -0000

Hi Spencer, Alexey,

The text refers to the Error itself.

   If a PCEP speaker that is unwilling or unable to negotiate TLS
   receives a StartTLS messages, it MUST return a PCErr message (in
   clear) with Error-Type set to [TBA2 by IANA] (PCEP StartTLS failure)
   and Error-value set to:

   o  3 (not without TLS) if it is not willing to exchange PCEP messages
      without the solicited TLS connection, and it MUST close the TCP
      session.

I can see how it could be misleading and I have corrected it to –

                  +-+-+                 +-+-+
                  |PCC|                 |PCE|
                  +-+-+                 +-+-+
                    |                     |
                    | StartTLS            |
                    | msg                 | PCE waits
                    |-------------------->| for PCC
                    |               PCErr |
                    |<--------------------| Send Error
                    |                     | Type=TBA2,Value=3
                    |                     | (not without TLS)
                    |<--------------------|
                    |       Close         |



   Figure 5: Both PCEP Speaker supports PCEPS as well as without PCEPS,
                   but PCE cannot start TLS negotiation

Regards,
Dhruv

From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Sent: 07 August 2017 19:16
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Cc: cmargaria@juniper.net; draft-ietf-pce-pceps@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; pce-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-15: (with COMMENT)

This is Alexey's ballot, but ...

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm<mailto:aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>> wrote:
One more little thing:


In figure 5, I see: Send Error (not without TLS)

What does "not without TLS" mean? I think the figure is sending PCErr in
the clear (without TLS)

This text wasn't clear to me, either.

Thanks for actually mentioning this in your ballot, Alexey.

Spencer

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017, at 11:46 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-pceps-15: Yes
 (snip)
> I think the text about use of RFC 6125 should use RFC 6125 terminology
> like
> DNS-ID and CN-ID, because they have a bit more semantics associated with
> them
> other than just subjectAltName:DNS. I think you should also clarify
> whether you
> want to allow wildcards in DNS-ID/CN-ID (RFC 6125 talks about that).
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email