Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11: 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-applicability-actn/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I appreciate all of the references to the various security considerations in Section 7. My primary question in reading this section was “Does the use of PCE in an ACTN introduce any additional vulnerabilities/threats/residual risk and how is this addressed?” as this document was focused on the applicability of PCE in ACTN. (1) I wasn’t sure how [RFC5440] and [RFC6952] were applying specifically to the ACTN use case. (2) I wasn’t sure how to use the guidance in the third paragraph, “As per [RFC8453] …”. It notes that [RFC8453] outlines both needed security properties and threats; and reiterates that [RFC8453] states that ACTN should have “rich security features”. The link and relevance to PCE was not evident. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
