[Pce] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 10 April 2019 22:12 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C7A1202EE; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 15:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions@ietf.org, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, julien.meuric@orange.com, pce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.95.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <155493437653.22640.5917609495933403034.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 15:12:56 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/IcyvHjI7dT0dqA1_1BAC_h38P1g>
Subject: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:12:57 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14: Discuss 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-gmpls-pcep-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Section 6, Per “The answer can make that the LSP traverses some geographical place known to the attacker where some sniffing devices could be installed”, this is a concern. Good that it is here. However, it seems like the consequences could be even more expansive – confidentiality (sniffing), integrity (modifying the traffic) or availability (choose to drop it). (2) Section 6, [RFC8253] is mentioned a few times as having a variety of capabilities to mitigate the described threats. This is the right reference. However, the current text doesn’t explicitly state whether and how this guidance should be followed (should, must, is recommended?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Section 2.3, Nit (missing commas and periods), s/(SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc)/ (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF, etc.)/ (2) In a few section. Typo (duplicate “section Section”). Recommend global s/section Section/Section/g (3) Section 6. Duplicate word. s/against against/against/
- [Pce] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-g… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-p… Cyril Margaria