[Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04

Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 23 December 2017 00:54 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints.all@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151399047747.30010.9137589938000821863@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 16:54:37 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Ww98dokOa4RyAJnCPOWS23GQZX8>
Subject: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04

Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready

Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-12-23
IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-28
IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-11

Summary: Ready
--------

Comment:
--------

fwiw, I agree with this:

   [RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points
   introduce no new security considerations.  However, implementations
   accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse
   and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come,
   accidentally, from another experiment.

There are a few words in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6709#section-5
that might also be relevant. An experimental code point is in effect
a protocol extension with unknown security properties.

[Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-p… Brian Carpenter
Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Dhruv Dhody
Re: [Pce] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of dr… Alissa Cooper