Diego Looks good with one slight query. I commented before on the use of 'client' in s.3.5 which suggested an asymmetric protocol, where the PCE checks on the PCC needed to be more stringent that those of the PCC on the PCE. I notice that one of the 'client' has gone but one has not and there is still a 'PCC' in there so it still to me carries the flavour that PCE checking of the PCC is more important than the other way round. I do not know if this is ok or not, how it lines up with the threat model.
Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:07 PM Hi, We have just uploaded a new version of draft-ietf-pce-pceps (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps/) We believe this new version addresses all the comments received from the SECDIR review after the last call period, and other pending ones provided by Tom while that SECDIR review was taking place. As far as the authors can say, the document is ready to progress. Be goode, -- "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" Dr Diego R. Lopez Telefonica I+D http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +34 913 129 041 Mobile: +34 682 051 091 ---------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
