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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

> (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.

It is (should be?) clear that moving PCEP on beyond MD5 is a Good Thing.

Ideally, everyone just gets on with it and the security update is handled by
draft-ietf-pce-pceps. But that I-D is chugging along in the WG for some reason.

Do we want:
1. All output from the WG to be blocked waiting for draft-ietf-pce-pceps?
2. All I-Ds to continue to say "just do MD5 per RFC 5440"?
3. To write sensible text in the Security Considerations and get on with life?

Adrian