Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - You're missing a reference for TCP-AO (RFC5925 I guess) - My understanding is that TCP-AO is not widely deployed. If it is expected that PCEPS will be, then it'd maybe be good to indicate that in section 9. - I would have thought that these extensions would provide new ways in which networks could lie about things in order to influence what paths are chosen. Is that new or was it already considered in the referenced RFCs? (Sorry, didn't have time to check right now.) If it is new, maybe it's worth a mention? Note: I'm not suggesting that this document specify the one true way to deal with that, just that it be noted, if it's useful to do that, but given one motivation offered is financial services, presumably not everyone trusts everyone to be entirely honest;-) _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
