Hi, Thanks for kicking off work to get PCEP able to work with TLS1.3.
This is important. However... :-) I think it would be helpful to clarify that statements about what implementations must or must not do (etc.) should be scoped as "implementations of this document." That is, you are not constraining PCEP implementations in general, and I don't even thing you are constraining TLS1.2 PCEP implementations. Well, if it was your intent to do otherwise, you really need to be clear that you are updating the base specs, but I hope you're not. Further, I am worried about the use of draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis as a normative reference. I understand that the long term intention is that that draft will obsolete RFC 8446, but it seems to be moving slowly (if at all - it has expired). I think that implementers wanting to apply TLS1.3 to their PCEP code will want to pick up TLS1.3 implementations that are stable (i.e., based on RFCs). Now, by the time this draft gets to completion, it is quite possible that 8446bis will have completed, and the draft can be updated to reference it and pick any additional points it makes. On the other hand, if this draft makes it to the RFC Editor queue before 8446bis is complete, I don't think you'd want it to sit around, and a subsequent bis can be made when 8446bis becomes an RFC. What do you think? Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
