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

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,

I missed that one. Yes, adding that reference would be perfect.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 7:09 PM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 Section 9:  RFC 8253 is outdated because of the publication of TLS1.3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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>