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 rev. 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
Other Reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Scott Bradner (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -04 by Taylor Yu (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Brian Carpenter
Review review-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2017-12-22
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/98s5KaX6KnjCG2v-GDaMdbOQtto
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Draft last updated 2017-12-22
Review completed: 2017-12-22

Review
review-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2017-12-22

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.