Hi Tiru, Now that the document is in the RFC Editor queue, I would caution against making further updates in this document unless we have to.
This document just adds another association-type and the comments are more of a generic nature. If the WG feels that any update is needed, it makes sense to do that independently. More inline... On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 5:56 PM tirumal reddy <[email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Tirumaleswar Reddy > Review result: Ready with issues > > I apologize for missing the deadline for this review. > > This document relies on [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281] and [RFC8697] for > security considerations. RFC5440 discusses the use of TCP-MD5 (obsoleted), > TCP Authentication Option and TLS 1.2. Further, RFC5440 refers to RFC7525 > for TLS recommendations. > > draft-ietf-pce-vn-association says use of TLS is recommended. > > My comments below: > > 1. Any specific reason for using "SHOULD" instead of using "MUST" for > TLS. If TLS is not used in certain scenarios, how is a malicious PCEP > speaker detected ? > The use of TCP-AO for instance. 2. Do you see any challenges encouraging the use of TLS 1.3 ? > It is a work in progress. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13/ > 3. You may want to make it clear that this document does not rely on > TCP-MD5. > That is well established. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6952.html#section-2.5 > 4. If existing implementations are using TLS 1.2, I suggest referring to > the recommendations in draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis instead of rfc7525. Please > see Appendix A in draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis, it highlights the differences > with rfc7525. > > RFC 7525 will get obsoleted by the new RFC# assigned for the bis eventually. We can also update RFC 8253 if needed. I dont think we should bury this in this small extension though. Thanks! Dhruv > Cheers, > -Tiru >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
