I'd like to hear from the AD and chairs here. It seems to me that the design I am suggesting is better, and if the primary argument is that the editors don't want to make the change at this date, that's not very strong. Conversely, I agree that this is a WG decision, so if you're telling me that the WG considered this flavor and rejected it, then I think that's reasonable and I'll remove my discuss.
-Ekr On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dh...@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi EKR, > > > > I have been told that my response [1] to your mail [2] has not reach some > of the mailboxes. > > > > Thus on advice of our AD, I am starting a new thread to reach closure on > this. > > > > The open point is - > > EKR suggested that we use the StartTLS message to indicate the local > policy if the PCEP speaker is willing to connect without TLS. Whereas the > current document does this by using the error message in case it is > unwilling or unable to start the TLS. > > > > EKR proposal works, but will require us to add a new PCEP object - > StartTLS object, as unfortunately there is no way to carry the information > in the current message/objects format defined. > > > > As an editor, my opinion was to avoid making a change in encoding if > possible, especially if the benefit is not big and the default setting is > strict TLS. > > > > But if the opinion is towards “mandating” making the change, I can put out > a version for review soon. > > > > All the other comments are handled in -16 [3]. Thanks for all the comments > and discussions! > > > > Regards, > > Dhruv > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg05487.html > > [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg05486.html > > [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-16 > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
