Re: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with COMMENT)
Your responses address all of my comments. Thanks! Ben. > On Apr 17, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Jonathan Hardwick > <jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> wrote: > > 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) > > > > 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 signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with COMMENT)
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) 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
[Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with COMMENT)
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/ -- COMMENT: -- 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. §7: Doesn't this need to say something about the possible security considerations when adding new path setup types ? 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. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
