Re: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09: (with COMMENT)

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben, 

> > >    If a PCE peer is unwilling or unable to process the ASSOCIATION
> > >    object, it MUST return a PCErr message with the Error-Type "Not
> > >    supported object" and follow the relevant procedures described in
> > >    [RFC5440].  [...]
> > >
> > > Does this imply that the P flag in the common header should always
> > > be set for ASSOCIATION objects?
> > >
> > [[Dhruv Dhody]] No, that was not the intention. I have made this
> > change -
> >
> >    If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the ASSOCIATION object in the
> >    stateful message, it will return a PCErr message with Error-Type
> >    "Unknown Object" as described in [RFC5440].  In case of PCReq
> >    message, the PCE would react based on the P flag as per [RFC5440].
> >
> >    If a PCE peer is unwilling or unable to process the ASSOCIATION
> >    object in the stateful message, it MUST return a PCErr message with
> >    the Error-Type "Not supported object" and follow the relevant
> >    procedures described in [RFC5440].  In case of PCReq message, the PCE
> >    would react based on the P flag as per [RFC5440].
> 
> I think I may have just confused myself previously; feel free to rever
> this change if you don't think it's helpful.
> 

[[Dhruv Dhody]] The extra text for PCReq doesn't hurt. So I would let the update stay. 

> > > Section 8
> > >
> > >    attack vector.  An attacker could report too many associations in
> an
> > >    attempt to load the PCEP peer.  The PCEP peer responds with PCErr
> > > as
> > >
> > > "report" in the sense of causing the peer to create state to track
> them?
> > >
> > [[Dhruv Dhody]] Yes, basically to overwhelm the peer.
> 
> Okay. I might suggest "attempt to create" instead of "report", but I
> recognize that there are reasons to use "report" in the context of PCRpt.
> 
[[Dhruv Dhody]] Ack. 

Working Copy: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10.txt
Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10.txt

Thanks for your detailed reviews. 

Dhruv

> Thanks for all the updates!
> 
> -Ben
>