[Teas] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: (with COMMENT)
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 30 August 2017 20:20 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 1B4481321F1; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, teas@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.59.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150412445206.21557.275657217562057272.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:20:52 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/jhjAREoPcMj0n0MLbXnHnfZT-3E>
Subject: [Teas] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:20:52 -0000
Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: 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-lsp-diversity/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure that the security considerations here are accurate. Specifically, the PAS seems like it might potentially leak information about paths, because if I am able to learn someone else's PAS values, I can tell if they are routed along the same paths as I am. Is that correct? If so, it seems like it might be useful to recommend self-encrypting PAS values so that two identical paths given to separate people have different PAS values. Also, it seems like it S 2.3 would be clearer if you factored out the algorithm for processing the XRO values from the differential treatment depending on the L bit. Perhaps you could just have one list and use [SHOULD (L=1), MUST(L=0)] or something?
- [Teas] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Teas] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Dieter Beller
- Re: [Teas] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Adrian Farrel