Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCECP) Specific Requirements for Inter-Area MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05
Yes
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
(Brian Carpenter)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(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
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
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
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
(2007-03-07)
Unknown
From the SecDir Review by Cathy Meadows: RFC 4657 explicitly includes multi-area networks among multi-domain networks. It then goes on the say, in the security considerations section: Of particular relevance are the implications for confidentiality inherent in a PCECP for multi-domain networks. It is not necessarily the case that a multi-domain PCE solution will compromise security, but solutions MUST examine their impacts in this area. More needs to be said aboutt multi-area routing and trust issues. The document says that it does not open up any new trust issues. Even though the different areas are administered by the same entity, there may still be issues if one or more of the areas is compromised.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown