Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE
RFC 8232

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Deborah Brungard) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-16 for -09)
No email
send info
I generally agree with the secdir review.

TCP/AO is sadly fictional, so please don't
let's pretend it's usable to help here. Just
recommend TLS. (And add BCP195 too please.)

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

(Mirja K├╝hlewind) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-15 for -09)
No email
send info
I only had time to skim this draft, but have no objections.  Thanks for your work on it.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2017-03-13 for -09)
No email
send info
(1) The Speaker Entity Identifier concerns me a lot because of the spoofing vector it introduces, and because I don't think the uniqueness is strongly specified.  I understand that the risk of spoofing is limited to the State Timeout Interval, but that is a long time:  at least 30 sec by default!  It looks like the main use case is to avoid state synchronization after an IP address change -- are there other?  

(2) By making TCP-AO/TLS "RECOMMENDED", this document is not in line with RFC5440, where only TCP-MD5 is mandatory.  I don't think the intent of this document is to Update RFC5440, is it?  Also, why would the recommendations for this extension be different than those in draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce (which doesn't go beyond what RFC5440 mentions)?  If you do keep the current recommendation, then draft-ietf-pce-pceps should be a Normative reference.