[Teas] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 21 January 2021 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E60F3A1715; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:50:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, lberger@labn.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.24.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <161120101856.29033.13995885511620024900@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:50:18 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/fGLeD2pqV8dgkVsnaFmii9pfOVA>
Subject: [Teas] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 03:50:19 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: 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-teas-pce-native-ip/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review

** Section 8.  Since PCE is used to setup the BGP sessions, etc., the
references to the Security Considerations of PCE specs should be reiterated as
applying – minimally RFC5440 and RFC8231.

** To restate Alvaro Retana's comment #9, RFC8231 already notes that malicious
PCE and PCCs are possible (see above comment).  In this context, the new
variant relevant to this architecture would be in form of (malicious) BGP
configurations.  It's worth highlighting.