Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: (with COMMENT)

["Mirja Kuehlewind" <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This part is unclear to me:
"It is, however, possible for an
   SBFDInitiator to carefully set "your discriminator" and TTL fields to
   perform a continuity test towards a target, but to a transit network
   node and not to the target itself. [...] 
   This also requires S-BFD control packets not be dropped by the
   responder node due to TTL expiry.  Thus implementations on the
   responder MUST allow received S-BFD control packets taking TTL expiry
   exception path to reach corresponding reflector BFD session."

You basically perform a traceroute with (S-)BFD, right? Why do you need
the last sentence? Wouldn't it be okay, if the packet get dropped by the
responder, to simply re-send with a higher TTL?