Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
RFC 4674
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) Yes
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
I think that section 6.6 should discuss confidentiality, not privacy. See the definitions of these words in RFC 2828. I also made this comment on draft-ietf-pce-comm-protocol-gen-reqs-04: If possible, it would be good to say a bit more about the identification of PCCs and PCEs. The text would aid identification, authentication, and authorization discussion if there is a clear way to name the entities.
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection
The discovery protocol may be an excellent way to improve the security of the basic communications protocol. For example, if the discovery protocol has good authentication and can carry the cryptographic identity of the PCE, then this protocol may significant ease the deployment of secure PCE devices. See draft-ietf-mmusic-comedia-tls for an example of a protocol where discovery is used to enhance the security of another protocol. The authors should consider whether such a solution will help their work.
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection