Re: [Pce] AD review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-02
Please and thank you. —John > On Dec 19, 2023, at 8:41 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > John, > > Now that the I-D has been placed on the 1/4 telechat should I spin a new > version that incorporates the outstanding PRs: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/pulls__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!C1CkLmJEflB_yG5NzS23pvZunYM61_KOufCqnD3aLWVaJZDL5UwvsYUQm373Q10IaWGT6mz5MA$ > > spt > >> On Dec 5, 2023, at 12:03, John Scudder wrote: >> >> Hi Authors, >> >> Thanks for this document. Looks good, I've requested IETF last call. >> >> A couple of notes below, they didn't seem worth holding up the last call >> for, but please consider them for your next revision. >> >> - "what PCEPS implementations do if a PCEPS supports more than one version". >> I don't think PCEPS (second occurrence) takes an article (i.e. referring to >> "a PCEPS" is weird). Some rewrite seems called for, perhaps s/a PCEPS/one/. >> >> - "neither the PCC nor the PCE should establish a PCEPS with >> TLS connection with an unknown, unexpected, or incorrectly identified >> peer;" >> >> Isn't "PCEPS with TLS" redundant, doesn't the ess in PCEPS imply TLS? In >> which case, just drop "with TLS". (See also, "ATM machine" :-) >> >> Thanks, >> >> —John > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] AD review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-02
John, Now that the I-D has been placed on the 1/4 telechat should I spin a new version that incorporates the outstanding PRs: https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/pulls spt > On Dec 5, 2023, at 12:03, John Scudder wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > Thanks for this document. Looks good, I've requested IETF last call. > > A couple of notes below, they didn't seem worth holding up the last call for, > but please consider them for your next revision. > > - "what PCEPS implementations do if a PCEPS supports more than one version". > I don't think PCEPS (second occurrence) takes an article (i.e. referring to > "a PCEPS" is weird). Some rewrite seems called for, perhaps s/a PCEPS/one/. > > - "neither the PCC nor the PCE should establish a PCEPS with > TLS connection with an unknown, unexpected, or incorrectly identified > peer;" > > Isn't "PCEPS with TLS" redundant, doesn't the ess in PCEPS imply TLS? In > which case, just drop "with TLS". (See also, "ATM machine" :-) > > Thanks, > > —John ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] AD review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-02
> On Dec 5, 2023, at 12:03, John Scudder wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > Thanks for this document. Looks good, I've requested IETF last call. > > A couple of notes below, they didn't seem worth holding up the last call for, > but please consider them for your next revision. > > - "what PCEPS implementations do if a PCEPS supports more than one version". > I don't think PCEPS (second occurrence) takes an article (i.e. referring to > "a PCEPS" is weird). Some rewrite seems called for, perhaps s/a PCEPS/one/. This was also noted during the RTGDIR review. I suggested the following change: https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/pull/13/files > - "neither the PCC nor the PCE should establish a PCEPS with > TLS connection with an unknown, unexpected, or incorrectly identified > peer;" > > Isn't "PCEPS with TLS" redundant, doesn't the ess in PCEPS imply TLS? In > which case, just drop "with TLS". (See also, "ATM machine" :-) It is! It would also be like saying HTTPS with TLS :) I did end deleting that para though while addressing the RTGDIR comments. > Thanks, > > —John Cheers, spt ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] AD review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-02
Hi Authors, Thanks for this document. Looks good, I've requested IETF last call. A couple of notes below, they didn't seem worth holding up the last call for, but please consider them for your next revision. - "what PCEPS implementations do if a PCEPS supports more than one version". I don't think PCEPS (second occurrence) takes an article (i.e. referring to "a PCEPS" is weird). Some rewrite seems called for, perhaps s/a PCEPS/one/. - "neither the PCC nor the PCE should establish a PCEPS with TLS connection with an unknown, unexpected, or incorrectly identified peer;" Isn't "PCEPS with TLS" redundant, doesn't the ess in PCEPS imply TLS? In which case, just drop "with TLS". (See also, "ATM machine" :-) Thanks, —John ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
