Hi, It goes without saying we would more than happy to refine the document with updated references (the world moves on, for sure…) and a more precise wording, but as far as I can tell nothing in the document contradicts the UTA work, and I assume we can do this during the shepherding process.
I think it would be a real shame to let the opportunity pass, especially when we are talking of an effort that has pioneered the application of TLS in this kind of protocols. Be goode, On 3 Jan 2017, at 11:24 , t.petch <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: s.1 the usage of /well-know/well-known/ mechanisms s.3.6 In case the initial TLS negotiation or the peer identity check /fail/fails/ More seriously, the world has a pesky habit of moving on; the fact that one of the references is an I-D from 2014 sort of tells the tale. The UTA working group have worked over the idea of how to start TLS and RFC7525, RFC7672 and RFC7457 may now be relevant while draft-elie-nntp-tls-recommendations-03 is the most recent working over of that territory that I know of and I would regard that as the current standard. For example, he tackles the terminology of strict v implicit v mandatory TLS, which the RFC have muddied the waters on. So, ready for the IESG in 2015, now I am less clear. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dhruv Dhody" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 4:32 AM Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-11.txt Hi WG, Chairs, We have updated the version to avoid expiry. The document was moved to the standards track 6 months back during the Berlin meeting. There have been no issues raised. The document was WG last called and now awaits shepherd review and write-up. There are no dependencies on other document and can be moved to the IESG. Happy 2017! Regards, Dhruv On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:43 AM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element of the IETF. Title : Secure Transport for PCEP Authors : Diego R. Lopez Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Qin Wu Dhruv Dhody Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pceps-11.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2017-01-02 Abstract: The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defines the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or among PCEs. This document describe the usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to enhance PCEP security, hence the PCEPS acronym proposed for it. The additional security mechanisms are provided by the transport protocol supporting PCEP, and therefore they do not affect the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP. This document updates RFC 5440 regarding the PCEP initialization phase specification. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-11 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pceps-11 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce -- "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
