[Pce] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: 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-pce-pceps-tls13/



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

Further to Eric's comment, I'm completely confused by question #4 of the
shepherd writeup.  While the document claims there are no implementations
known, the shepherd writeup says there's at least one (and it was easy), and
makes another "Yes" remark that I don't understand.

Forwarding a comment from Orie Steele, incoming ART Area Director:

Noting the comment on 0-RTT / early data regarding secrecy, and the comment on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8253#section-3.4

 *  Negotiation of a ciphersuite providing for confidentiality is  RECOMMENDED.

I'm not an expert on PCEPS, but I wonder why the need for the note at all given
PCEPs only recommends confidentiality, and the requirement above states early
data is forbidden.