IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan IESG status

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 17 June 2020 18:40 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 A3F413A0AEF; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cCnssM6dz3fZ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3FF23A0AE7; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 9so4141446ljc.8; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Bn1MTw3CNFKMebunhWrHqJdja34bhu9Zw89DjVx5SfI=; b=JahNx+fENPFuU9BEE3pZbs0UC9DIxDSVmsn8EIoxsfSkCGHNHDd5+lJQkdPjWbegqU d9fHKmrIpsLk2QgwSrExc5q1et5n4iaQ+7BZICkVqd2wzHAIoFcMki3eJydmFn+laXu9 xQZrGyuO9lvApzSMi4M1wVKbbNBGGbybkxHh3V/0xd/GKiCS0xUgnikiq14MmtcSpIZX vvkZ4KVKXA54nx23pvW7gOTjGXBICkGArQRGM/tpilw1Naqv7a2oRcmHUh8kanHfScC7 18MMWmfqYfOmdOJFkR6KBnokJ4wP8g7OBRwdcmBSzlhc2nFCyJhJLp8p4dxUJYW5AyFF YsLQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Bn1MTw3CNFKMebunhWrHqJdja34bhu9Zw89DjVx5SfI=; b=e01PXNtSmO3mbF4gn65AtWKlaxlxERv5jh1xoDeS0fZSme3dKC8NxmPPZ4SKcg8ULR DHqDHfzWvaenk5Q0rmPHkY8MsYATE1zZVE7VnuUmGnDBqDnDlEK1vSNcMYe1rFtFmedM oM/2svZ4CSW7IG7TdMlkLseDMOpx8jlRoXsfUemlbUIwTl89osDFk3DGbEJz7S4TLGpX 1cEBXwG6KkUcHcciG+VlZ2bVvGhGG2gJYVyxSTn2p/06Xu2B17SorRwgQQ97sgJPgwei O6j/0qIB6ZRzY2dFM1JY9RP1njtH2vye0uUg2P41ZDL8H3ZVuLBJQJSnDKorN0LAzIBc 8BAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530vumcr2Ww4e+o7Zi9RZEMxcx7lGPKJiJeLEa5hBGMqpo3w/R+W HQmlNbpm78Y+aXY5sfwwBYfatKYCSNSj6bvUxmA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwI4uK4Ok1X2Q81nKfb2NniJ79z4OyA7KG5JqMvaucLoFyfacf5lks0QzCPB/4NDqlFHFCF2eULimzucAVuQ4A=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b88c:: with SMTP id r12mr307614ljp.266.1592419251956; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200127221705.GB17622@pfrc.org> <20200616211057.GA21373@pfrc.org> <CAMMESsxsPKM+jnLESOh=C+xyrw8+iGySXuMDo3TFTdU2RgUkDg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxsPKM+jnLESOh=C+xyrw8+iGySXuMDo3TFTdU2RgUkDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:40:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWiw8HFFZfcPPb_D8EutEacbbkK9=btbj6MM4SKAnV9yg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan IESG status
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, bfd-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d8b55805a84bff8e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Tu1qJ3kw3sj1XcyfbzwBdDjx5Jc>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 17 Jun 2020 18:40:56 -0000

Hi Alvaro,
thank you for the suggestion. I have a question. The current version
references RFC 5082:
         TTL or Hop Limit: MUST be set to 255 in accordance with the
         Generalized TTL Security Mechanism [RFC5082].
RFC 5881, while stating the requirement for the TTL or Hop Limit value,
refers to RFC 5082 as the text that explains the benefits of using 255 on a
single IP link. In both documents, RFC 5082 is listed as a normative
reference. Would using RFC 5082 be acceptable or you suggest changing it to
RFC 5881?

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:37 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On June 16, 2020 at 5:01:57 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>
>
> Hi!
>
>
> ...
> > > Open Issue 1: Discussion on TTL/Hop Limit = 1
> > >
> > > Proposed Action: Greg has proposed text he will send to the working
> group
> > > suggesting GTSM procedures be utilized. The expected concern is how
> this
> > > impacts existing implementations.
> >
> > This issue is resolved.
>
> As I had mentioned before [1], the use of 255 should reference
> rfc5881: the requirement is one from the base spec, not a new one
> here.
>
> Suggestion>
>
>    TTL or Hop Limit: MUST be set to 255 in accordance with [RFC5881].
>
>
> I am clearing my DISCUSS.
>
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/aiJW3KjYevY83wEDwVj488FSVl0/
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email