Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)

["Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>]

Greg, I agree “MUST use” doesn’t read well. s/use/expect/ is good with me.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 12:14 AM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)


Hi Reshad,

thank you for your consideration. I've came across what looks as simple editorial change. Appreciate your comment.

In the second paragraph of section 4.8 Packet consumption on tails the following

  For multipoint LSPs, when IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD control packets

  is used, MultipointTail MUST use destination UDP port "3784" ...

reads akwardly because, I think, of 'MUST use'. I propose simple s/use/look for/ or s/use/expect/. What do you think? Is the text god as-is or minor editing may help?



Regards,

Greg Mirsky



Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division


[cid:9ae3e214c17d49ed935d87c674ba3ee2]

[cid:24242e5637af428891c4db731e7765ad]
E: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn/>

Original Mail
Sender: ReshadRahman(rrahman) <[e-mail]>
To: gregory mirsky10211915;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: 2018/02/08 11:03
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
<Sorry for the delay>
Hi Greg,

I would go with normative SHOULD. What you proposed below is fine.

Regards,
Reshad.


From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:33 PM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)


Hi Reshad,

you've said:

Hi Greg,



While OOB mechanism would improve security, my personal opinion is that we should try to improve security without requiring an OOB mechanism. I think we can add text to the security considerations to address the concerns below, e.g. A tail SHOULD prevent the number of MultipointTail sessions from exceeding the number of expected streams.  The concern expressed in b) cannot be fixed by what I proposed because of multiple streams.  So just preventing the number of MultipointTail sessions from exceeding the number of expected streams should be good enough.



Regards,

Reshad.



If we make it normative SHOULD, i.e. s/should/SHOULD/ in the third recommendation to the implementers:

     The implementation SHOULD have a reasonable upper bound on the

      number of MultipointTail sessions that can be created, with the

      upper bound potentially being computed based on the number of

      multicast streams that the system is expecting.



Or keep the lower case as it is consistent with the rest of the section, e.g. 'a MultipointTail session should not be created'?



Kind regards,

Greg Mirsky



Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division


[cid:9ae3e214c17d49ed935d87c674ba3ee2]

[cid:24242e5637af428891c4db731e7765ad]
E: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn/>