Hi Ben Thanks for the comments - please see [Jon] below.
Best regards Jon -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell Sent: 03 April 2018 21:00 To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with COMMENT) <snip> Substantive Comments: §1.1: There are at least a few instances of lower case versions of 2119 keywords. Please consider using the boilerplate from RFC 8174. [Jon] OK - done §7: Doesn't this need to say something about the possible security considerations when adding new path setup types ? [Jon] I added the following in response to a similar comment from Benjamin Kaduk. Do you think this covers it? NEW Note that, if the security mechanisms of [RFC5440] and [RFC8281] are not used, then the protocol described by this draft could be attacked in the following new way. An attacker, using a TCP man-in-the-middle attack, could inject error messages into the PCEP session when a particular PST is (or is not) used. By doing so, the attacker could potentially force the use of a specific PST, which may allow them to subsequently attack a weakness in that PST. END Editorial Comments and Nits: §5: "... it MUST consider that the peer suports only ...: I think perhaps "consider" should have been "assume"? Also, s/suports/supports. [Jon] Thanks - fixed. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
