Subject: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 15:12:56 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14: Discuss

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-gmpls-pcep-extensions/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Section 6, Per “The answer can make that the LSP traverses some
geographical place known to the attacker where some sniffing devices could be
installed”, this is a concern.  Good that it is here.  However, it seems like
the consequences could be even more expansive – confidentiality (sniffing),
integrity (modifying the traffic) or availability (choose to drop it).

(2) Section 6, [RFC8253] is mentioned a few times as having a variety of
capabilities to mitigate the described threats.  This is the right reference. 
However, the current text doesn’t explicitly state whether and how this
guidance should be followed (should, must, is recommended?)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Section 2.3, Nit (missing commas and periods),
s/(SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc)/
(SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF, etc.)/

(2) In a few section.  Typo (duplicate “section Section”).  Recommend global
s/section Section/Section/g

(3) Section 6.  Duplicate word.  s/against against/against/