draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-05.txt		draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-06.txt
	Network Working Group Adrian Farrel		Network Working Group Adrian Farrel
	IETF Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting		IETF Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting
	Proposed Status: Informational		Proposed Status: Informational
	Expires: January 2007 Jean-Philippe Vasseur		Expires: February 2007 Jean-Philippe Vasseur
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Arthi Ayyangar		Arthi Ayyangar
	Nuova Systems		Nuova Systems
			August 2006
	A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching		A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching
	Traffic Engineering		Traffic Engineering
	draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-05.txt		draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-06.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
	have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes		have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
	aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.		aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	skipping to change at line 822		skipping to change at line 825
	security procedures for existing protocols in the MPLS context		security procedures for existing protocols in the MPLS context
	continue to apply for the intra-domain cases.		continue to apply for the intra-domain cases.
	Inter-domain security may be considered as a more important and more		Inter-domain security may be considered as a more important and more
	sensitive issue than intra-domain security since in inter-domain		sensitive issue than intra-domain security since in inter-domain
	traffic engineering control and information may be passed across		traffic engineering control and information may be passed across
	administrative boundaries. The most obvious, and most sensitive case		administrative boundaries. The most obvious, and most sensitive case
	is inter-AS TE.		is inter-AS TE.
	All of the intra-domain security measures for the signaling and		All of the intra-domain security measures for the signaling and
	routing protocols are equally applicable and efficacious in the		routing protocols are equally applicable in the inter-domain case.
	inter-domain case, and it may be reasonably assumed that if the		There is, however, a greater likelihood of them being applied in the
	measures are strong enough for intra-domain security then they are		inter-domain case.
	also strong enough for inter-domain security. There is, however, a
	greater likelihood of them being applied in the inter-domain case.		Security for inter-domain MPLS TE is the subject of a separate
			document that analyses the security deployment models and risks. This
			separate document must be completed before inter-domain MPLS TE
			solution documents can be advanced.
	Similarly, the PCE procedures [PCE] are subject to security measures		Similarly, the PCE procedures [PCE] are subject to security measures
	for the exchange computation information between PCEs, and for LSRs		for the exchange computation information between PCEs, and for LSRs
	that request path computations from a PCE. The requirements for this		that request path computations from a PCE. The requirements for this
	security (set out in [PCE-REQ]) apply whether the LSR and PCE (or the		security (set out in [PCE-REQ]) apply whether the LSR and PCE (or the
	cooperating PCEs) are in the same domain or lie across domain		cooperating PCEs) are in the same domain or lie across domain
	boundaries.		boundaries.
	It should be noted, however, that techniques used for (for example)		It should be noted, however, that techniques used for (for example)
	authentication require coordination of secrets, keys, or passwords		authentication require coordination of secrets, keys, or passwords
End of changes. 4 change blocks.
	7 lines changed or deleted		13 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.32. The latest version is available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/