Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
RFC 8282

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

Deborah Brungard Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-15)
No email
send info
The typo raised in the Gen-Art review should be corrected.

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-15)
No email
send info
The "enhanced" security considerations proposed in response to Mirja's comments resolve my discuss. I am clearing on the assumption it makes it into the draft. I've moved my discuss point into the comments for now:

If I am reading things correctly, the security considerations just say the extensions in this draft may raise new security considerations, but doesn't say anything about what they might be. That's an incomplete analysis. What new considerations actually (not "may") exist? What potential attacks may be enabled by these extensions, if any? Are there things people can do to mitigate them?

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

(Mirja K├╝hlewind) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-14)
No email
send info
Minor comments:
1) I guess the I flag in the INTER-LAYER Object is actually not needed as the present of the INTER-LAYER Object already indicates that inter-layer information is requested, but that is not an issue.
2) Is the INTER-LAYER Object Flags registry really needed, given the limited amount of flag space???
3) Security Consideration: "Inter-layer traffic engineering with PCE may raise new security
   issues when PCE-PCE communication is done between different layer
   networks for inter-layer path computation."
   This text is not very helpful as this section is meant to be used to document these new issues.

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection