Hi Ben, > > > If a PCE peer is unwilling or unable to process the ASSOCIATION > > > object, it MUST return a PCErr message with the Error-Type "Not > > > supported object" and follow the relevant procedures described in > > > [RFC5440]. [...] > > > > > > Does this imply that the P flag in the common header should always > > > be set for ASSOCIATION objects? > > > > > [[Dhruv Dhody]] No, that was not the intention. I have made this > > change - > > > > If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the ASSOCIATION object in the > > stateful message, it will return a PCErr message with Error-Type > > "Unknown Object" as described in [RFC5440]. In case of PCReq > > message, the PCE would react based on the P flag as per [RFC5440]. > > > > If a PCE peer is unwilling or unable to process the ASSOCIATION > > object in the stateful message, it MUST return a PCErr message with > > the Error-Type "Not supported object" and follow the relevant > > procedures described in [RFC5440]. In case of PCReq message, the PCE > > would react based on the P flag as per [RFC5440]. > > I think I may have just confused myself previously; feel free to rever > this change if you don't think it's helpful. >
[[Dhruv Dhody]] The extra text for PCReq doesn't hurt. So I would let the update stay. > > > Section 8 > > > > > > attack vector. An attacker could report too many associations in > an > > > attempt to load the PCEP peer. The PCEP peer responds with PCErr > > > as > > > > > > "report" in the sense of causing the peer to create state to track > them? > > > > > [[Dhruv Dhody]] Yes, basically to overwhelm the peer. > > Okay. I might suggest "attempt to create" instead of "report", but I > recognize that there are reasons to use "report" in the context of PCRpt. > [[Dhruv Dhody]] Ack. Working Copy: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10.txt Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10.txt Thanks for your detailed reviews. Dhruv > Thanks for all the updates! > > -Ben > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
