Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE
RFC 8232
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(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.
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
I only had time to skim this draft, but have no objections. Thanks for your work on it.
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
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.)
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection