Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04
review-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2017-12-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-12-28
Requested 2017-12-14
Authors Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Adrian Farrel
Draft last updated 2017-12-22
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Scott O. Bradner (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -04 by Taylor Yu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian E. Carpenter
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2017-12-22
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready
Completed 2017-12-22
review-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2017-12-22-00
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-12-23
IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-28
IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-11

Summary: Ready
--------

Comment:
--------

fwiw, I agree with this:

   [RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points
   introduce no new security considerations.  However, implementations
   accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse
   and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come,
   accidentally, from another experiment.

There are a few words in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6709#section-5
that might also be relevant. An experimental code point is in effect
a protocol extension with unknown security properties.