Re: [Pce] PCE WG Last Call - draft-ietf-pce-pceps-04

[Julien Meuric <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I think your comments could be 
addressed along with those to come from shepherd's review, unless the 
authors prefer to do an update before.

I have just contacted the Security Directorate without specifying a 
fixed version number, which should bring reviewers on the latest at 
review time.

To be continued,

Julien


Nov. 20, 2015 - [e-mail]:
> Julien
>
> I am happy for the I-D to progress to IETF LC.  I will be interested to
> see a review by the Security Directorate and most interested to see what
> happens when the Security and Transport ADs review it:-)
>
> Meanwhile, some editorial thoughts to be picked up at some stage.
>
> IANA are being asked to exercise their PCE skills! You are asking for
> the allocation of more than one number but use TBA as the placeholder
> for every number; this requires someone to understand the protocol to
> know which number goes where.  Other editors use TBA1, TBA2,   ... TBA23
> etc which I think IANA would find clearer.
>
> IANA will also have to work out which registry is being updated, which
> is probably a more straightforward task.
>
> SHA-256 has no reference, and is ambiguous.  TLS uses SHA256 as its term
> but another list is currently updating its use of SHA to SHA-2 and is
> using SHA-2-256 on the grounds that SHA-3 is around and so SHA-3-256
> will be too so how do you tell the two apart when all you have is
> SHA256?  I find SHA-2-256 ugly but take their point so think it should
> be used here - and given a normative reference.
>
> s.3.1
> /this procedure update/this procedure updates/
>
> /The details of processing including backward compatibility is discussed
> /The details of processing including backward compatibility are
> discussed /
>
> s.3.2
> /including the open message/including the Open message/
>
> /session must be closed /the session must be closed /
>
> /A PCEP speaker receives any other message /A PCEP speaker receiving any
> other message /
>
> /(e.g. the certificate server is not responding)  /
> Is this a refererence to OCSP?  I am not used to there being certificate
> servers, unless they are CAs or providing CRLs.
>
> s.3.3
> /a PCEP session between the PCEP peers/
>
> Given the context, would /PCEPS session/ be appropriate?
>
> /form the PCEP peer /from the PCEP peer /
>
> Figure 3; based on the preceding text, I would expect there to be a
> PCErr message from PCC to PCE since it has received an Open message and
> not a StartTLS
>
> Figure 3
> /open message/Open message/
>
> s.3.5
> "fingerprint of the presented client certificate"
> Why only the client?  I would have expected this to apply to the server
> as well.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julien Meuric" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Dhruv Dhody" <[e-mail]>; "DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA"
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:19 AM
>
>> Hi Dhruv,
>>
>> If you expect some updates after a review from the Security
> Directorate,
>> then the sooner the better. If you feel it useful, we will proceed
> when
>> your next revision is published.
>>
>> Thanks for being proactive here,
>>
>> Julien
>>
>> Nov. 19, 2015 - [e-mail]:
>>> Hi Julien,
>>>
>>> We have the update ready to go.
>>>
>>> Quoting from Tom's mail -
>>>
>>>> So I value the early intervention of the
>>>> Security Directorate to try and fix such
>>>> issues sooner, and so cheaper, rather than later.
>>>
>>> We were wondering if it would be worthwhile (and allowed by the
> process) to request for an early Sec-Dir review while the control is
> still with the WG?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dhruv
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Pce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
>>>> Sent: 19 November 2015 14:56
>>>>
>>>> Hola Diego,
>>>>
>>>> The WG LC was started for a 2-week period: you can consider it
> finished.
>>>>
>>>> Finished or not, you are expected to resolve all the received
> comments and
>>>> publish an update accordingly, so as to have the I-D ready to be
> sent to the
>>>> IESG. Feel free to proceed as soon as you are able to.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Julien
>>>>
>>>> Nov. 18, 2015 - [e-mail]:
>>>>>
>>>>> And let me insist that I'd directly ask the UTA WG about this. My
> only
>>>>> question is about procedure: shall we wait till we finish the last
>>>>> call period? Shall we perform it as part of the last call process?
>>>>> What do our chairs think?
>