IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 10 January 2018 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB42012711B; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:59:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=fdq1tAH4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=EGtxyKUr
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GT-LyAG-Ozfb; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41DB1127601; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D5220B87; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:59:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:59:56 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=YRQayxNMDyFsK9ELZA0sefwS4TGMR 73r49lkwNtjioY=; b=fdq1tAH40AlcK00sdCfYouc1RtnLS84TDm1zi4EC8+NXj s0CanZscinZ62SCRJ9+UPAc4nTXRmUcrrwCrVAENnR8UA9jKjRfWG3P2pkue9AlY 62s4rdLhgU3PaFFVxIihM0qWqgrRUo73tp1JJl550sUxBXspcIgBuEUmHkDm9SAj Fx7nkd+SL1udVz5S6q2IZB7mYYxMj1fWqP5UmF2Sevyp95E+yFZrN1YMet5pFDsc sd8pXJKZuJxDsufzDVfgFedV53tjCrkM/N+5CTDJRVIo8yly3/1mrcjIapx3YVX6 YDUoOafCeuEuPlSgM9UPd/a8DIZWGpnx6OWWJp/VQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=YRQayx NMDyFsK9ELZA0sefwS4TGMR73r49lkwNtjioY=; b=EGtxyKUrpciUAUxSE4g/Cl NmA6ZaWqQEewBL1PH1pKvmPMCCAP4hDVIDrU09hPnGQkBukMq+BzYRlMTFgy0IrU TTildkDyeI7qCmhX+FSAooqYJ2ADmADIpxV531DK2D+JsWCWDNcW7cgyGrGNJ4A/ Fmpw0zUfQciH22bHYnac0U4m2U0UvLFA0I/9D/G4WoW1FWrCKbOHsDlh8PuaUn4o ymgoWdpOxAmjOl1/3N3lJlTt/80VXNOPoZfTpkyI6BrCcrEGddWUVUUQPChN7gjF PxJUYeaNY2rqW0O1vUm5sGnCkIv6DG9d/CmfnaDMg3xOMxgRm3QrKmQn7Q4gvUOg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:vHBWWoMsTNbBTIZdNc-7ZafHciyxZIrNju6RPqTsxvh9YbMCWbRKzw>
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8812.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.179]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7A1257E3D7; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:59:55 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8D5FBE65@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:59:53 -0500
Cc: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints.all@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7DB0A640-0D1E-4FCB-8C28-7918AFFE25FC@cooperw.in>
References: <151399047747.30010.9137589938000821863@ietfa.amsl.com> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8D5FBE65@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/hL6vtT-Qi_x4_Ufe-cqme1WhOYU>
Subject: Re: [Pce] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:00:00 -0000

> On Dec 27, 2017, at 5:46 AM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian, 
> 
> Thanks for your review. 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Carpenter
>> Sent: 23 December 2017 06:25
>> To: gen-art@ietf.org
>> Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints.all@ietf.org
>> 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.
>> 
> [[Dhruv Dhody]] We could add this text as per your suggestion -  
> 
>   Further, an implementation
>   accepting experimental code points needs to consider the security
>   aspects of the experimental extensions.  [RFC6709] provide various
>   design considerations for protocol extensions (including those
>   designated as experimental).

This seems reasonable to me.

Brian, thanks for your review. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> 
> Thanks! 
> Dhruv
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pce mailing list
>> Pce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email