Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-08

From: Shawn Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 00:38:16 -0700

Reviewer: Shawn M Emery
Review result: Ready with nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like any other last call comments.

This draft specifies an extension to the Path Computation Element
communication
Protocol (PCEP) that allows for different path setup methods for a given
session.

The security considerations section does exist and defers security aspects
related to this draft to RFC 5440 and 8281.  I agree with this assertion.
I believe
that the base specifications cover the security concerns and ways to
mitigate
sufficiently for this protocol.  It was also good to see that PCEP is
developing
security as a forethought [RFC 8253].

General comments:

None.

Editorial comments:

s/A Path Computation Element can/A Path Computation Element (PCE) can/

s/extension to PCEP/extension to the PCE communication Protocol (PCEP)/

s/be able take control/be able to take control/

Shawn.
--

---

From: Jonathan Hardwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 13:26:08 +0000

Thanks for the comments, Shawn.  I agree with your mark-ups below and will make sure they are updated in the next revision.
Best regards
Jon

From: Shawn Emery [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 04 March 2018 07:38
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-08

Reviewer: Shawn M Emery

This draft specifies an extension to the Path Computation Element communication
Protocol (PCEP) that allows for different path setup methods for a given session.

The security considerations section does exist and defers security aspects
related to this draft to RFC 5440 and 8281.  I agree with this assertion.  I believe
that the base specifications cover the security concerns and ways to mitigate
sufficiently for this protocol.  It was also good to see that PCEP is developing
security as a forethought [RFC 8253].

General comments:

None.

Editorial comments:

Shawn.
--