Hi, Acee Thanks for valuable comments, see reply inline below. 发件人: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem (acee) 发送时间: 2021年7月22日 23:11 收件人: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; l...@ietf.org 抄送: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-supp...@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-05
Speaking as a WG member, I support publication. I only have one functional comment and that is on Appendix A. Note that a key-chain or key-id would be useful for MD5 as well as TLS and TCP-AO. I’m not suggesting that you add MD5 since it is historic but support of MD5 as specified in RFC 5440 would require configuration of the same key or key-chain on the PCC and PCE server. [Qin]: Good comment, I think we can add one statement at the end of the paragraph to say: “ Irrespective of which security capability support is selected, the same key or key-chain on the PCC and PCE server should be configured. ” I also have some editorial comments that you can decide whether or not to apply. Of note are that I don’t think you need to say “looking for connecting with a” and can simply say “looking for a”. Also, once this document is published the capability bits and sub-TLVs are not longer “new”. See full set of editorial comments in attached RFC diff. [Qin]: I agree with the most of comments and will incorporate them in. One little tweak or fallback is s/ capability flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV in IS-IS is set to/ capability flag bit of PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV in IS-IS is set to I think the original text is more clear here, using two ‘in’ is a little bit verbose in my view. Thanks, Acee From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:46 PM To: "l...@ietf.org<mailto:l...@ietf.org>" <l...@ietf.org<mailto:l...@ietf.org>> Cc: "draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-supp...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-supp...@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-supp...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-supp...@ietf.org>> Subject: [Lsr] WG Last Call for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-05 This begins a 3-week WG Last Call, ending on August 4th, 2021, for draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support. Please indicate your support or objection to this list before the end of the WG last call. The longer WG last call is to account for IETF week. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support/ Thanks, Acee
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
