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

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Greg,

In general, I think your clarifications are helpful.
The one point I have minor disagreement is "SHOULD be populated/initialized" ... to what?
One option is "an expected value".
Personally, I'd find "an expected value. A suggested value is ..." and use the defaults below.

That said,  I don't have a strong opinion that we must use some magic value.  My desire is that we avoid unset values being a potential vector for disclosure of uninitialized memory.

-- Jeff

> On Apr 12, 2023, at 4:10 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo <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 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html#section-5.1>
>> 
>> 
>