Subject: [Pce] Last call complete on PCEP

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 18:40:04 -0000

Hi,

Thanks to those who reviewed and commented during last call.

I saw a bunch of emails, and it is my reading that they mainly completed 
without any requirement for updates to the I-D.

*** If you disagree with this view, please speak up.

The issue that was left open was raised in the context of the XRO draft. The 
question was about harmonising the subobjects used to carry AS numbers. PCEP 
(as RSVP-TE) assumes 2 byte AS numbers. XRO allows 2 or 4 byte AS numbers. 
Should we converge, and if so, which way?

It is my (personal - not WG chair) opinion that it would be good to 
converge, so one of the I-Ds needs to change.
It is the opinion of the PCEP editors that it is convenient to restrict PCEP 
to 2 byte AS numbers on the grounds that we do not yet know how/if RSVP-TE 
will handle 4 byte AS numbers. New subobjects can be introduced for 4 byte 
AS numbers as and when needed.

That means that PCEP remains unchanged, and the XRO authors should update 
their I-D.

*** If you disagree with this view, please speak up.

Lastly, there were a couple of open questions from my review of the security 
section of the I-D. These related to key management and distribution. The 
editors and I don't know the answers to the questions. Since the IESG review 
will include a review by the Security Directorate, we can expect them to 
pick up on any issues (if they exist), and we have decided to pass the I-D 
to the IESG without delay and with no further attempt to resolve the 
questions.

*** If you think this is unreasonable, please speak up.

I will be writing the protocol shepherd documentation during the IETF week, 
with a view to submitting it to the ADs by the end of the week. So shout 
soon if you have any concerns.

Cheers,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce