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

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 12 April 2023 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
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 068A5C1BE87A; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 pcswCOVUqnzU; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x1129.google.com (mail-yw1-x1129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1129]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 496D3C19E10D; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1129.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-54ee0b73e08so243413197b3.0; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681330227; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=v+S3XJ5bTaF9qsAR4H7VPlvG21k7+mU4jbD6qzTCUfM=; b=VkK5mpLgTvTnA1XTlnoGWNU0eqBKEYNjyOHWkiBiMv+9MAbiXB/GFToF4Iul3DtojT rgy+aJPExocqHZlTeXW4bHMj1XAUZkvMTopT4Cc29PFd/rx33Buwlv0+vAZt9EqE3+ZT XumooR1vVtzFk3X0cCEcEZjbniqft4NawbMjoMU02aQ4HFrM+mlFqE3e4/NzF2sMJJyL pSlzImf/4uCu5vC9fI+W4nJDOr/ILL+KLWsRjez+I+d8aeToJ17C/xP8HLB9jj51pYA8 iUAoIAr4oxzD6snO8wuybR2+L0qJt/K9x6DiYP75R0RmyAm6NOZCVxVGkxar1Eib6Wt0 UmTQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681330227; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=v+S3XJ5bTaF9qsAR4H7VPlvG21k7+mU4jbD6qzTCUfM=; b=bEmg0Nymw0MLAbndikOoPwwtRs2/tquFXcThiLrZQASGclBcc7eFFIZUx2F4ud0R0S 9em8bZso1zOsQM6rSfF97gIw8BoUrq+yssTRav1IW1zKL2uDXW6TX8zvfnmg230EfDjD R4+5ylJDj/+gINILur5tS6ZoJB7HXok760xjAl8KazmgdkEauslE1CickD7I7JANrRdZ wok2m46PAyfwCtHMLSDwpFU8NW64+Ld8/7dfdTUmv4LR/oOTeZuBMy8qdjZGmTGOo7Bv +DbY2SHR/jv35obO3L9yu1qlU2AKclZBvdAbcb6jnKnGT7CvwAoTJA+Qa/EocKbEpNUp V1eQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9e1vCQGyPakDmEfvKfFea0VEYNyHmAkzf56DNW0aW1lcTI3z6qb kiD3oitbCzcGIS/tioQLRTBToreaYFnAVEXq78S+eJMwY4E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZH3R7HgnVbZJZS4Coy+dYP+lQQ9hOJmi1jgIpi3hrhTGKSf/+m4Idfb2QdIcqaJcNFqQ2NaMFqIIyCbFeYMfw=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:b184:0:b0:545:f7cc:f30 with SMTP id p126-20020a81b184000000b00545f7cc0f30mr9016295ywh.0.1681330226844; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E3E52D3E-1DEB-42B0-97D3-75B4A9904F00@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmWRruoBteKxsXXX7UWJ4zo2C5ruyjS+XfA7-Cadt=juag@mail.gmail.com> <196C9D52-E144-4EFA-A25B-2453122DCB13@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <196C9D52-E144-4EFA-A25B-2453122DCB13@pfrc.org>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:10:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWN+6-m9p-GbHdS0MySwRjonYW43MPaZhh-K7FRVYL48w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo@ietf.org, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ebda1405f9293227"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/RPToybyOQSTTwRwCn6r-SSnyJW8>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:10:32 -0000

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 <jhaas@pfrc.org> 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 <gregimirsky@gmail.com> 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 <jhaas@pfrc.org> 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
>>
>>
>>
>