Skip to main content

Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-10

Yes

(Deborah Brungard)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Ben Campbell)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -09) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-03-13 for -09) Unknown
(1) The Speaker Entity Identifier concerns me a lot because of the spoofing vector it introduces, and because I don't think the uniqueness is strongly specified.  I understand that the risk of spoofing is limited to the State Timeout Interval, but that is a long time:  at least 30 sec by default!  It looks like the main use case is to avoid state synchronization after an IP address change -- are there other?  

(2) By making TCP-AO/TLS "RECOMMENDED", this document is not in line with RFC5440, where only TCP-MD5 is mandatory.  I don't think the intent of this document is to Update RFC5440, is it?  Also, why would the recommendations for this extension be different than those in draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce (which doesn't go beyond what RFC5440 mentions)?  If you do keep the current recommendation, then draft-ietf-pce-pceps should be a Normative reference.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-03-15 for -09) Unknown
I only had time to skim this draft, but have no objections.  Thanks for your work on it.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-03-16 for -09) Unknown
I generally agree with the secdir review.

TCP/AO is sadly fictional, so please don't
let's pretend it's usable to help here. Just
recommend TLS. (And add BCP195 too please.)
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown