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

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

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2017-03-13 for -09)
No email
send info
(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.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-03-15 for -09)
No email
send info
I only had time to skim this draft, but have no objections.  Thanks for your work on it.

(Mirja K├╝hlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-03-16 for -09)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info