[Pce] Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-26: (with COMMENT)

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

A good plan!  That draft has the 8446bis draft also referenced (so the most
up to date version of TLS 1.3).

There is also a UTA draft that will be part of BCP 195 eventually which
deprecates the old versions of TLS, but I don't think we have to go crazy
here.  What you have proposed is perfect.

TYVM

Deb

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 10:31 AM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Thanks Deb, Dhruv, Ketan for comment and discussion.
>
> I'll update last statement in “Security Considerations” to:
>
> “Hence, securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [
> RFC8253
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-27.html#RFC8253>
> ][I-D.ietf-pce-pceps-tls13
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-11.html#I-D.ietf-pce-pceps-tls13>]
> is RECOMMENDED as per the recommendations and best current practices
> described in [RFC9325
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-27.html#RFC9325>
> ]."
>
> Regards,
> Samuel
>
> *From: *Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Monday, 13 October 2025 at 15:39
> *To: *Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-26:
> (with COMMENT)
>
> Hi Ketan, Deb,
>
> The authors can also add an additional reference to -
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/
>  alongside RFC8253.
> It is in the RFC editor queue.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 6:15 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Deb,
>
> The current text in Section 9, reads as follows:
>
> Hence, securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [
> RFC8253
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-27.html#RFC8253>] is
> RECOMMENDED as per the recommendations and best current practices described
> in [RFC9325
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-27.html#RFC9325>
> ].
>
> So, it does cover RFC9325 that you have pointed out. There isn't an update
> of RFC8253 that is available, and so hopefully this is adequate indication
> of the shift to TLS 1.3?
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 4:02 PM Deb Cooley via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-26: 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-sid-algo/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the secdir review by Alexey Melnikov.
>
> Section 9:  RFC 8253 is outdated because of the publication of TLS1.3
> (RFC8446). Consider listing BCP 195 vice RFC 9325 to ensure the most recent
> guidance for the implementation of TLS.
>
>
>
>