Re: [Pce] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jon,

That looks fine to me. (Note though that now that I've escaped
from the IESG, what I think no longer matters:-)

Cheers,
S.

On 11/04/17 15:35, Jonathan Hardwick wrote:
> Hi Stephen
> 
> Many thanks for this comment.  I'm picking up this thread and replying as PCE working group chair, as the authors are unavailable.  I apologise for the delay.
> 
> Please see my proposed resolutions inline below, marked with "Jon>"
> 
> Best regards
> Jon
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 16 March 2017 12:48
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Julien Meuric <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> In 10.1, some references seem to be needed to say how to do that authentication and encryption. IIUC, that's a work in progress, or is that right? If so, when's it likely to be done and usable?
> 
> Jon> You are correct - this is being specified in draft-ietf-pce-pceps.  That document is ready to be submitted to the IESG (we are only waiting for the IPR poll to conclude) but draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is likely to be published first.
> We already discussed how to handle this with draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations, which was approved for publication recently.  I think that we should handle it in a consistent way for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.  So I propose this change:
> 
> OLD
>    As a general precaution, it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions
>    only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs
>    and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority.
> NEW
>    As a general precaution, it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions
>    only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs
>    and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using Transport Layer
>    Security (TLS) [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps], as per the recommendations and
>    best current practices in [RFC7525].  An administrator could also expose the
>    speaker entity id as part of the certificate, so that the peer's identity can be verified.
> END NEW
> 
>