Re: [Last-Call] Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-12

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Fri, 18 October 2024 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18618C1CAF55; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 19:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BP2gl4f_-hX3; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 19:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F423C1CAF41; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 19:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4XV8315vynz5D3w4; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:36:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4XV82P5tNwz50FXX; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:35:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app06.zte.com.cn ([10.55.23.119]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 49I2ZTT7004303; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:35:29 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app07[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:35:30 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:35:30 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2aff6711c972ffffffffe44-4f3ff
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20241018103530350Ln5pUlimoc8tM1UqMU5oD@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <F9772CA5-1B8E-42E7-BCA3-1F1719DE46C5@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: 20241017164516302EjeXaMy7lF-17oq-id4YF@zte.com.cn,F9772CA5-1B8E-42E7-BCA3-1F1719DE46C5@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-12
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 49I2ZTT7004303
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 6711C99D.002/4XV8315vynz5D3w4
Message-ID-Hash: EGKBR2CBYV7SJI7XOT5YZCBKBRPHJ5P6
X-Message-ID-Hash: EGKBR2CBYV7SJI7XOT5YZCBKBRPHJ5P6
X-MailFrom: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtg-bfd.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo.all@ietf.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/AX5FNkfvVbC1kDioQhyQWhMQUwg>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtg-bfd-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtg-bfd-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtg-bfd-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Gorry,

Thank you for the confirmation.
I'll change the text as suggested by Dhruv to add a reference to RFC 5082.

Cheers,
Xiao Min


Original


From: Gorry(erg) <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>;jhaas@pfrc.org <jhaas@pfrc.org>;last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo.all@ietf.org>;rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年10月17日 18:50
Subject: [Last-Call] Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-12


-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@ietf.org



On 17 Oct 2024, at 09:45, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn wrote:





Hi Dhruv,

Thank you for the prompt feedback.
Please see inline.



I do think the addition of the reference helps. Thanks. 
This gives context and informs people who might like being creative with different ways to design this mechanism.
Gorry












From: DhruvDhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: jhaas@pfrc.org <jhaas@pfrc.org>;gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>;last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo.all@ietf.org>;rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年10月17日 16:32
Subject: [Last-Call] Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-12


-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@ietf.org



Hi Xiao,




[XM]>>> I can add the reference to RFC 5082 back to this document, if no objection from Dhruv (who had that concern). Propose to change the text as below.
OLD


All Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets for the session MUST be sent with a Time to Live (TTL) or Hop Limit value of 255, and received with a TTL or Hop Limit value of 254, otherwise the received packets MUST be dropped.NEW
All Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets for the session MUST be sent with a Time to Live (TTL) or Hop Limit value of 255, and received with a TTL or Hop Limit value of 254, otherwise the received packets MUST be dropped ([RFC5082] Appendix A).END






Dhruv: I would have been happy with rephrasing the text in such a way that referencing 5082 made sense. Would this be better - 


"All Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets for the session MUST be sent with a Time to Live (TTL) or Hop Limit value of 255. Received packets MUST have a TTL or Hop Limit value of 254 (similar to Appendix A of [RFC5082] to verify against a configured number of hops); otherwise, the received packets MUST be dropped."[XM]>>> Yes, your text looks better to me. How about Jeff and Gorry?