Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
RFC 4674

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Ross Callon) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

Comment (2006-05-25 for -)
No email
send info
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.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2006-05-25 for -)
No email
send info
  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.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection