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

Greg Mirsky <> Wed, 12 April 2023 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72E2C151B01; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZ7T13L3KXi7; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112c]) (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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0716CC15155F; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 00721157ae682-54f6fc7943eso104128677b3.3; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1681309341; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ydBPb04PeqY+g//Bz8yfiPwYnwhFIKEcMZn6WqGbSqQ=; b=A4cdA+ID9qozDQjS0ZcUBK5w4CSsY2bnJfYKj1nQQ42N/nqla7nFpNoIEaoureMbUP o4b4GqpbmmIRJ4WL+v+SI0p30iXJ89bN7UWJlQETIQi8LfRHzSNKZQRX/vnqkMGeeAhW ChYNt30TkzmSwH99IFh28MSoUur61Q+oO710wyRV4bZvZoivUpvWvCeZCMwtgupV3Eo/ HjT0cbt8pPa8ORR6/e5hbxL+qx5trDVKWnGqo4VTzAYi+s2p//RnpCPlZhckBlYH2Ukx PH2sBV+kaIIQTU0T2Cx8yghmhMwNSpLT6+pFKbvj1wTnN20Q/4OeOyl3j09E/CsTD5lb 8rbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; t=1681309341; 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=ydBPb04PeqY+g//Bz8yfiPwYnwhFIKEcMZn6WqGbSqQ=; b=bxUx+Z42ln3ACWoxyL7+R8PN6Kliu+hcssjPlNvk62zKahCuY6sFIdRmEK7F7/2om2 bATTLlIEv8ttcsu+bb6WxbQbOQ+qFjRo7BTljbpJt0zC56r3PRg4OIbGka7Tlq2AOFFs e+EdTkkVnCCMAncvuVstL5Dfr1IvffxKBT7aYbXIdIWAp+wrVfsRB9pnfTdgX0AHFZ9k fXU3KceGuIt8xKAI+bfcmzyvvyL2fg0CDhdSd5cK1fUHJD/M81x9zL1V4UBCzPG1lcDu 5pWa/XQm1wW2gzcNdb8fUxql0aXspRSYBBV4enNHV5WCWq9YVsQoYqYdwVkP+ET/cEKe k/xQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dqCF4KsjFwWqxwIB0hZzifoURm631P6CcOdeSnuj+hNalZSI+R gkB8Klxl8RH2+GpYrqdSQ39Y16LtIOAKJEWYKdYka2nNc78=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YrlfBxzNNZnM8Ct6BDc7hhoL01ukEdJ1XcK7lgb7CH8DJ5k/T5oeOTItYn+tFvEdhwdrtaPosO/oslaIJjhNM=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:b184:0:b0:545:f7cc:f30 with SMTP id p126-20020a81b184000000b00545f7cc0f30mr8328694ywh.0.1681309340735; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:22:09 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check
To: Jeffrey Haas <>
Cc:, rtg-bfd WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000031c0b05f924565b"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:22:32 -0000

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?


On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 8:27 AM Jeffrey Haas <> wrote:

> 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]