Hi Zahed, On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 8:15 PM Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote:
> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-28: Discuss > > 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-pcep-yang/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for working on this specification, specially for the hard work > needed to > pull of such a long specifications. Thanks to Mihael for his TSVART review. > > I have two points I would like to discuss so that we can clarify the > specification better ( and it might be also coming from my lack of > grasping the > long specification ) > > 1. I saw QUIC (RFC9000) is mentioned to used as secure transport to PCEP > communication as par with TLS. What I would like to understand why there > is > no special considerations posed for 0-RTT data while there is MUST not > use > restriction for TLS1.3 early data? > > Dhruv: The only reference to QUIC is in security consideration, the text is as per the updated security consideration template for YANG at https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-21.html#section-3.7.1 This is not about PCEP using QUIC, instead it is about NETCONF and RESTCONF using QUIC. Regarding 0-RTT for TLS 1.3, we have it handled in - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-over-tls13/ (in RFC Editor Queue) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/ (PCEP also handles it, also in RFC Editor Queue) > 2. While the capabolity leafs has entry for TCP-AO, TLS usage, it does > not > have any capablity to indicate the support of QUIC. How would the PCE > elements discover and use QUIC as a secure transport? > > Dhruv: Though there is an individual draft that proposes QUIC for PCEP, it has not been adopted yet and thus it is premature to add it to YANG. > Both of those above points indicates that the QUIC usage is underspecified > to > be used as secure transport for this protocol. I would like see that I am > incorrect in my assertion in this regard. > > > Dhruv: I hope I have answered these to your satisfaction. Thanks! Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
