Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,
thank you for your response. It seems to me that the values of these fields
are implementation specific and don't impact interoperability. If that is
correct, then I propose the following updates:
OLD TEXT:
   Within the BFD Unaffiliated Echo packet, the "Desired Min TX
   Interval" and "Required Min RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880] SHOULD
   be populated with a value of 1 second (1,000,000 microseconds).
   These values, however, are ignored and not used to calculate the
   Detection Time.
NEW TEXT:
   Within the BFD Unaffiliated Echo packet, the "Desired Min TX
   Interval" and "Required Min RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880], SHOULD
   be initialized before the transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
   Furthermore, these values MUST NOT be used to calculate the
   Detection Time.

OLD TEXT:
   The "Required Min Echo RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880] MUST be set
   to zero.
NEW TEXT:
   The "Required Min Echo RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880] SHOULD be set
   before the transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.

Regards,
Greg


On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 8:00 AM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> Flipping the question around somewhat:
>
> These portions of the PDU will be serialized onto the wire.
> An implementation could choose values locally to help its own procedures.
> Perhaps for heuristic tuning of the session.  So, there's argument for
> "these values are left to the implementation" - or as you note "this value
> is ignored".
>
> What text would YOU want to see present in this draft?
>
> In the absence of an implementation having an opinion about the behavior
> for its own purposes, I believe we want some boring "expected" value
> minimally as implementation advice.  IMO, that's one step nicer than
> whatever memory noise is left from your allocated buffer that might
> disclose something unexpected from your implementation internals.  (See
> various virtualized host environment bugs relating to memory ownership.)
>
> -- Jeff
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2023, at 10:22 AM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear, Authors and all,
> my apologies for the belated comments. I greatly appreciate your
> consideration of the notes below:
>
>    - Given that it is stated that the values of "Desired Min TX Interval"
>    and "Required Min RX Interval" in an Unaffiliated BFD Echo message are
>    ignored, what do you see as the value of using the normative language in:
>
>    Within the BFD Unaffiliated Echo packet, the "Desired Min TX
>    Interval" and "Required Min RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880] SHOULD
>    be populated with a value of 1 second (1,000,000 microseconds).
>
>
>    - As I understand it, the "Required Min Echo RX Interval" value is not
>    used in the Unaffiliated BFD Echo. If that is the case, what do you see as
>    the value of requiring it to be zeroed:
>
>    The "Required Min Echo RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880] MUST be set
>
>    to zero.
>
> Perhaps stating that the "Required Min Echo RX Interval" value is ignored
> in the Unaffiliated BFD Echo is sufficient. WDYT?
>
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 8:27 AM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo
>>
>> Working Group,
>>
>> The Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo has
>> completed.  My judgment is that it has weak, but positive support to
>> proceed to publication.  This isn't atypical of BFD work at this point in
>> the BFD Working Group's life.
>>
>> The next steps for the document:
>>
>> 1. Please continue to iterate through the issues raised during last
>> call.  I will be summarizing them in the original WGLC thread.  I suspect
>> we can reach conclusion for them shortly.
>>
>> 2. Each of the authors needs to make an attestation as to whether they're
>> aware of any additional IPR applicable to this document.  The rest of the
>> Working Group, as per BCP 78/79[1] should also disclose of any applicable
>> IPR if they're aware of it.
>>
>> One thing that makes this document particularly interesting is that this
>> work is covered partially under work done in BBF in TR-146.  This will be
>> noted in the shepherd writeup.
>>
>>
>> -- Jeff
>>
>> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html#section-5.1
>>
>>
>>
>