Re: [Pce] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-11: (with COMMENT)

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Warren,

Thanks for your review. Apologies for making you sad (we definitely
don't want that :)! How about this text instead of removing ->


6.  Management Considerations

   Manageability considerations for PCE Discovery are addressed in
   Section 4.10 of [RFC4674] and Section 9 of [RFC5088] [RFC5089].

6.1.  Control of Policy and Functions

   A PCE implementation SHOULD allow the following parameters to be
   configured on the PCE:

   *  support for TCP-AO

   *  the KeyID used by TCP-AO

   *  Key Chain Name

   *  support for TLS

6.2.  Information and Data Model

   The YANG model for PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] supports PCEP
   security parameters (key, key chain and TLS).

6.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   Normal operations of the IGP meet the requirements for liveness
   detection and monitoring.

6.4.  Verify Correct Operations

   The correlation of PCEP security information advertised against
   information received can be achieved by comparing the information in
   the PCED sub-TLV received by the PCC with that stored at the PCE
   using the PCEP YANG.

6.5.  Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components

   There are no new requirements on other protocols.

6.6.  Impact on Network Operations

   Frequent changes in PCEP security information advertised in the PCED
   sub-TLV may have a significant impact on IGP and might destabilize
   the operation of the network by causing the PCCs to reconnect
   sessions with PCE(s).  Section 4.10.4 of [RFC4674] and Section 9.6 of
   [RFC5088] [RFC5089] list techniques that are applicable to this
   document as well.

Thanks!
Dhruv


On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:42 AM Warren Kumari via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I started ballotting DISCUSS on this, but, surprisingly, "You made Warren
> sad"
> isn't actually one of the DISCUSS criteria, and so I'm (grudgingly and
> with bad
> grace) balloting NoObj instead.
>
> ----
> 6.  Management Considerations
>
>    A configuration option may be provided for advertising and
>    withdrawing PCEP security capability via OSPF and IS-IS.
> ----
>
> This section seems more than pointless to me - it seems (admittedly very
> slightly!) harmful. It doesn't actually *say* anything useful, but the
> very act
> of it showing up in the index / table of contents gives the impression that
> there may be actually Management Considerations text somewhere below. This
> initially made me all excited, and set my heart a flutter -- only to be
> crushed
> when I actually read it.
>
> Please consider ripping the section out - AFAICT, it doesn't accomplish
> anything, other than leading to false hope...
>
>
>
>