Subject: [Teas] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:20:52 -0700

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: No Objection

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-teas-lsp-diversity/

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

I'm not sure that the security considerations here are accurate. Specifically,
the PAS seems like it might potentially leak information about paths, because
if I am able to learn someone else's PAS values, I can tell if they are routed
along the same paths as I am. Is that correct? If so, it seems like it might be
useful to recommend self-encrypting PAS values so that two identical paths
given to separate people have different PAS values.

Also, it seems like it S 2.3 would be clearer if you factored out the algorithm
for processing the XRO values from the differential treatment depending on the
L bit. Perhaps you could just have one list and use [SHOULD (L=1), MUST(L=0)]
or something?