[Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09: 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/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-stateful-sync-optimizations/



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

(1) The Speaker Entity Identifier concerns me a lot because of the
spoofing vector it introduces, and because I don't think the uniqueness
is strongly specified.  I understand that the risk of spoofing is limited
to the State Timeout Interval, but that is a long time:  at least 30 sec
by default!  It looks like the main use case is to avoid state
synchronization after an IP address change -- are there other?  

(2) By making TCP-AO/TLS "RECOMMENDED", this document is not in line with
RFC5440, where only TCP-MD5 is mandatory.  I don't think the intent of
this document is to Update RFC5440, is it?  Also, why would the
recommendations for this extension be different than those in
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce (which doesn't go beyond what RFC5440
mentions)?  If you do keep the current recommendation, then
draft-ietf-pce-pceps should be a Normative reference.