IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan IESG status

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 25 February 2020 20:47 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 36DE43A1580; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:47:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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] 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 2Z-ldwPlJ0d1; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:47:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (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 A098C3A157F; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id s23so208957lfs.10; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:47:00 -0800 (PST)
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=X9WBgGK5nXgtbhUC+nliEoM2zBvr7GuX2OCed7brlnE=; b=Gu0XIiqXnumAaFjCz+ibtmlclh7+UCNseKPXHU2tGjLgYmI915Z+uBQFtaK1Mms486 FghKAqAd1lp1fEmgGavJqVt3ayJwt0ogSLqhwE18gsT/+cgkQr2pGxNsY78JBUzi/Rlu mCkTNFQSI1WviUIeyJjs2vOhaT3kBcuK+smZXtPiFreUdpnt0cvIWJh49JfdaHcBRbPe 3s37Ou9GxNVzt8sMGxHVu42/ID7nqrXXujCVtWywp5wQV+koroHZWwTwDQJxFoGAZX03 fMSpbbWe5QUww72w9k4/l1VIK+dIvZtyxNQQ1duQPvXSmWyVb8Hw5RhcL3p6Ly/LHWYW u1PQ==
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=X9WBgGK5nXgtbhUC+nliEoM2zBvr7GuX2OCed7brlnE=; b=eZUDskx4Cikz0Ij6lHv2+32cwPctR52p/VlZIMviRJQCOveqr7q6LT/QFRhFCOVC1v 6vt0OC4eSAk1uRdQ7f6zYPmiz8IZsLtZ7U0mhZIjSKFII5QAJDC6AdXx05BPNiJPi3iJ ygOzhQr4UN70AbRCtJ/bdyTPmmTY5eJn6g31x8V3RzhK12UgteplobOhPukxncuiA6ls kMHuRmI3NAj+ndtimN+A+QHsfAoB+RSSt1JkpcSORRIWsjMVRNTAZXHrvsrmGnlfISJv CQbc4+k+ac00cwOc//OeChBFN0TtixPTc6Muso3iO5QVvO00craQaDJKTZJ4RlKGUn4l zbAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWctUXFN4KZ+h1F4+m2qMcIq3V7bTz6qvPjPVT89TNPdPiw0iT8 OZT94bTqtqU+vqRRwMNT341g9gEXnNSbm5BIIZc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsGGQ3yzHbaJPczGSONa4UOztsdTut5ZtCRVsKd7aA4PBMfiCpVKV/lPsWpEdroX92gV0WyjDsAWR1jiKIu3Lg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:15d:: with SMTP id m29mr371056lfo.158.1582663618698; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:46:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157660542458.26499.3977878811671361973.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmUPCrj_ahxa098vj__niNndjbOJEccA-KwoopgKp5C51Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESszAax2AjRvw4wSS1ydBsDhEepyz3XASach46rxzGknX4g@mail.gmail.com> <20200127221705.GB17622@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmWTUks=Y2rPFmpgpXFDNSMjz92Csd7MfNeaaYWGA_ZpcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESsxX6UhxTV31TxTA+10NG1V62mgrcvf3ehW9mipuw+Yq3A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxX6UhxTV31TxTA+10NG1V62mgrcvf3ehW9mipuw+Yq3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:46:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVGk9VgUzVoB-pm7rRg7D_bMWNp6fjYEbvrZYFvWGcq5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan IESG status
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, bfd-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000caa027059f6c9670"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/aiJW3KjYevY83wEDwVj488FSVl0>
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: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:47:03 -0000

Hi Alvaro,
thank you for your suggestion. I'll update the reference to RFC 5881. And
I've realized that GTSM is not used anywhere else in the document. Cleaned
it up.
I will try to make the new update before the cut-off date.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:25 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On January 27, 2020 at 5:44:24 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>
>
> Greg:
>
> Hi!
>
> > below are the proposed changes to address the IP TTL/Hop Limit open issue
>
> I didn't see a discussion on the list, but since I'm holding the DISCUSS...
>
> Your proposed changes are fine, just one nit:
>
> ...
> > NEW TEXT:
> > TTL or Hop Limit: MUST be set to 255 in accordance with the
> > Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) [RFC5082].
>
> I think that a better reference would be rfc5881.
>
>
> I will clear my DISCUSS once the WG confirms, and you submit an update.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:11 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> ...
> > >
> > > 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.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email