Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-03-06
Requested 2018-02-20
Authors Siva Sivabalan , Jeff Tantsura , Ina Minei , Robert Varga , Jonathan Hardwick
I-D last updated 2018-03-08
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Daniele Ceccarelli (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Shawn M Emery
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Has nits
Completed 2018-03-08
Reviewer: Shawn M Emery
Review result: Ready with nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like any other last call comments.

This draft specifies an extension to the Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) that allows for different path setup methods for a given

The security considerations section does exist and defers security aspects
related to this draft to RFC 5440 and 8281.  I agree with this assertion.
I believe
that the base specifications cover the security concerns and ways to
sufficiently for this protocol.  It was also good to see that PCEP is
security as a forethought [RFC 8253].

General comments:


Editorial comments:

s/A Path Computation Element can/A Path Computation Element (PCE) can/

s/extension to PCEP/extension to the PCE communication Protocol (PCEP)/

s/be able take control/be able to take control/