Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
draft-ietf-pce-discovery-reqs-05
Yes
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-05-25)
Unknown
I think that section 6.6 should discuss confidentiality, not privacy. See the definitions of these words in RFC 2828. I also made this comment on draft-ietf-pce-comm-protocol-gen-reqs-04: If possible, it would be good to say a bit more about the identification of PCCs and PCEs. The text would aid identification, authentication, and authorization discussion if there is a clear way to name the entities.
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-05-25)
Unknown
The discovery protocol may be an excellent way to improve the security of the basic communications protocol. For example, if the discovery protocol has good authentication and can carry the cryptographic identity of the PCE, then this protocol may significant ease the deployment of secure PCE devices. See draft-ietf-mmusic-comedia-tls for an example of a protocol where discovery is used to enhance the security of another protocol. The authors should consider whether such a solution will help their work.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown