IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12: (with DISCUSS)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 15 March 2017 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
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 A9A9713160F; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gqW3irJhl2eW; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94F0D13160A; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.39] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v2FF1gFK089334 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:01:43 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.39]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:01:44 -0500
Message-ID: <8928FE44-8848-41D1-A77E-F4C38AA34950@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <06a601d29d77$36484260$a2d8c720$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <148953994688.24339.9408979324263736038.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <06a601d29d77$36484260$a2d8c720$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/vSlq4oU4iA68eGTWrVraRL4rFhw>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12: (with DISCUSS)
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, 15 Mar 2017 15:02:17 -0000

The proposed text resolved my discuss. I will clear on the assumption it 
will make it in.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 15 Mar 2017, at 5:30, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Ben,
>
> Please see the text proposed to address Mirja's Comment.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
>> Sent: 15 March 2017 01:06
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext@ietf.org; 
>> pce-chairs@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Pce] Ben Campbell's Discuss on 
>> draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12:
> (with
>> DISCUSS)
>>
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12: Discuss
>>
>> 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-inter-layer-ext/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> If I am reading things correctly, the security considerations just 
>> say
>> the extensions in this draft may raise new security considerations, 
>> but
>> doesn't say anything about what they might be. That's an incomplete
>> analysis. What new considerations actually (not "may") exist? What
>> potential attacks may be enabled by these extensions, if any? Are 
>> there
>> things people can do to mitigate them?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pce mailing list
>> Pce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email