>Authors feel it will be a good to have this draft separately rather than >simply merging into draft-ietf-pce-pceps. >Any opinions or objection?
IMO, keeping separate is good as scope is different in both. I and Diego had chat offline on this but how this discovery is beneficial as you still operator have to configure AUTH/Security credentials on the nodes. I am asking this in particular as scope is MD, AO and TLS. Also I see PCE has to be part of the IGP here, whereas I see draft-ietf-pce-pceps doesn't mandate this (does it??) More later. -- Uma C. -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 3:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-01.txt Hi, Here is the update to draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-01. The most changes are editorial changes. The diff is: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-01 This draft provides a mechanism for PCC to discover PCE with TLS support. In addition, the draft also support discovery of PCE server with MD support, TCP-AO support respectively. Authors feel it will be a good to have this draft separately rather than simply merging into draft-ietf-pce-pceps. Any opinions or objection? Regards! -Qin -----邮件原件----- 发件人: I-D-Announce [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 [email protected] 发送时间: 2014年8月14日 13:10 收件人: [email protected] 主题: I-D Action: draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-01.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery Authors : Diego R. Lopez Qin Wu Dhruv Dhody Daniel King Filename : draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-01.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2014-08-13 Abstract: When a Path Computation Element (PCE) is a Label Switching Router (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a server participating in IGP, its presence and path computation capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding. The IGP extensions for PCE discovery (RFC 5088 and RFC 5089) define a method to advertise path computation capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and IS-IS respectively. However these specifications lack a method to advertise PCEP security (e.g., Transport Layer Security(TLS)) support capability. This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub- TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement to distribute PCEP security support information. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
