Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-12
xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Thu, 17 October 2024 06:58 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 709F6C169410; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_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 LjjLj5pwBOf0; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79A62C14F749; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (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 4XTdwB3Q8Lz8R03x; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:58:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app07.zte.com.cn ([10.55.22.95]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 49H6wRis011956; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:58:27 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app08[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:58:29 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:58:29 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b006710b59540f-3fcf4
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20241017145829651IGagzx1RjLx_BjZyFGspE@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <8B6CD627-09DA-4480-808A-776E0553765C@pfrc.org>
References: 172900211105.1006979.13185411143316403177@dt-datatracker-78dc5ccf94-w8wgc,4a36dc52-977e-4d81-bb1a-155a1b240ab7@erg.abdn.ac.uk,20241015211109.GA18649@pfrc.org,12edc0c4-2968-4bdb-b976-b1f5918296c4@erg.abdn.ac.uk,8B6CD627-09DA-4480-808A-776E0553765C@pfrc.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: jhaas@pfrc.org, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-12
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 49H6wRis011956
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 6710B59A.000/4XTdwB3Q8Lz8R03x
Message-ID-Hash: 6RHGQCLISDC3Q7EMBSCN3KK5JENGBXJZ
X-Message-ID-Hash: 6RHGQCLISDC3Q7EMBSCN3KK5JENGBXJZ
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: 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/IS9FMOmvftjFKm5ESaP0rpD7o24>
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 Jeff, Gorry, I'm following your discussion to see whether some text change needed. Please see inline. Original From: JeffreyHaas <jhaas@pfrc.org> To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>; Cc: 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16日 23:34 Subject: Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-12 Gorry, On Oct 16, 2024, at 3:02 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: On 15/10/2024 22:11, Jeffrey Haas wrote: Gorry, On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 05:26:04PM +0100, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: I have a few comments, but i am not a routing expert, so I'm maybe misisng context on the intended use, and why this is a good thing to allow.... I did not find a description of why this was needed. Like many IETF specifications, the use cases often get dropped from the work as the document proceeds through its discussion. [...] For me, that's much clearer than the text that appears in the draft, thank you for explaining. Could something like this appear in the spec.? As noted above, we usually start with the use cases in the document and they get removed across the process. I'm not in favor of it, but it's common. Consider for example the applicability section from section 4 of the adopted -00: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-01#section-4 It eventually was excised in version -04. I don't find appropriate traceability in mailarchive to show why that happened. GTSM, aka RFC 5082, isn't mentioned or used, but it seems to berelevent? If not, then the mechanism used to protect from forwarding needs more explanation. See the text covering TTL in the draft. That TTL text was what made me ask. I still think this might be a use fo GTSM, aka RFC 5082? If so, that's good for me, if you refer to it - if it's not, what is different? There is some concern that this isn't the normative GTSM. However, RFC 5082 Appendix A applies. [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 Cheers, Xiao Min
- UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-ec… Gorry Fairhurst
- Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-unaffili… Brian Trammell via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Erik Auerswald
- Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliate… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-unaf… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-unaf… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-unaf… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-unaf… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-unaf… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-unaf… xiao.min2
- Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliate… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliate… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Erik Auerswald
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Erik Auerswald
- Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliate… xiao.min2
- Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliate… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Last-Call] Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf… xiao.min2
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [Last-Call] Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf… Gorry (erg)
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Greg Mirsky
- RE: [Last-Call] Re: Tsvart telechat review of dra… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Jeffrey Haas
- RE: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Last-Call] Re: Tsvart telechat review of dra… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Tsv-art] Re: [Last-Call] Re: Tsvart telechat… Zaheduzzaman Sarker
- Re: [Last-Call] Re: Tsvart telechat review of dra… Erik Auerswald
- Re: [Last-Call] Re: UDP Guidelines and draft-ietf… xiao.min2
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-i… xiao.min2
- Re: [Tsv-art] Re: [Last-Call] Re: Tsvart telechat… Erik Auerswald
- Re: [Last-Call] Re: Tsvart telechat review of dra… Erik Auerswald
- Re: [Last-Call] Re: Tsvart telechat review of dra… Stephen Farrell