On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:38 AM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > > But so what? You are not supposed to expect anything other than a crash! > You are not supposed to run conflicting experiments and failure does not > need to be graceful. >
But as I noted in my original review, your document does not say that. You might argue that RFC 3692 says that (though it's not clear to me that it precisely does), but as you don't cite it as a normative reference, you can't rely on that either. If you'd like to modify the document to state that (or point me to the text in your document which does so), I'll remove my DISCUSS. -Ekr > > There is nothing new here! Nothing new in this document. Nothing to see, > move along now. > > > > Adrian > > > > *From:* Eric Rescorla [mailto:e...@rtfm.com] > *Sent:* 08 January 2018 13:19 > *To:* Adrian Farrel > *Cc:* The IESG; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; > pce-cha...@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04: (with DISCUSS) > > > > > > Hi Adrian, > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > > The purpose of this document is to adjust the registries to allow > > experimentation, not to redefine or refine the meaning of Experimental > codepoints. > > We do draw out the security concern that we think 3692 glossed over, but > this is > a reminder to protocol specs or implementers that they must watch out. > This is > not a protocol spec and doesn't need to describe how implementations handle > conflicts. > > > > No, but it does need to describe the impact of what happens when there is > confusion, which it presently does not. This is not solely a security > concern but also an interoperability and correctness concern. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > Ciao, > Adrian > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
