Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09: 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-stateful-sync-optimizations/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (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. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
