Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Eric, Let me take one more stab at it - 5. Security Considerations As described in [RFC5862], P2MP path computation requests are more CPU-intensive and also utilize more link bandwidth. In the event of an unauthorized P2MP path computation request, or a denial of service

Re: [Pce] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)

On 8/31/17 01:34, Dhruv Dhody wrote: Hi Adam, -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam Roach Sent: 30 August 2017 08:20 To: The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adam Roach's

Re: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)

> On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > Hi Ben, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell >> Sent: 29 August 2017 08:18 >> To: The IESG >> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006...@ietf.org;

Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with DISCUSS)

No, not really. You're still citing to 5440 which has the TCP-MD5 stuff, and there's no requirement to use AO. I think what's needed here is a normative requirement for something strong than TCP-MD5. I defer to the WG on what that should be, but it's really not OK to keep using TCP-MD5 as our

Re: [Pce] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)

Thanks. Make sure it appears in the ToC. Regards, B. Hi Benoit, Adrian, I have updated Appendix A to include all changes from RFC6006 and made the RBNF changes as a sub-section. See working copy at - https://github.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/blob/master/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04.txt

Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Eric, > -Original Message- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla > Sent: 31 August 2017 05:12 > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on

Re: [Pce] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)

Hi Benoit, Adrian, I have updated Appendix A to include all changes from RFC6006 and made the RBNF changes as a sub-section. See working copy at - https://github.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/blob/master/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04.txt Diff:

Re: [Pce] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)

Hi Adam, > -Original Message- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam Roach > Sent: 30 August 2017 08:20 > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Adam Roach's No Objection on

Re: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben, > -Original Message- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell > Sent: 29 August 2017 08:18 > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on

Re: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)

Hi Mirja, > -Original Message- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind > Sent: 25 August 2017 19:19 > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on