Hi Paul, Thanks for your review.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:52 AM Paul Wouters via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > In the security considerations it says: > > This document provides for future addition of flags in the LSP > Object. No additional security issues are raised in this document > beyond those that exist in the referenced documents. Note that the > [RFC8231] recommends that the stateful PCEP extension are > authenticated and encrypted using Transport Layer Security (TLS) > [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current practices in > [RFC7525]. > > It feels that it is trying to say "these flags are protected by the TLS > recommendation", but it could probably say that a bit more clearly. > > How about we add this text at the end - "Thus the flags in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV are also protected by the above mechanisms and recommendations." Thanks! Dhruv (as a shepherd) > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
