IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan IESG status

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 17 June 2020 20:36 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 9921A3A0C98; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:36:29 -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 wiECY2ZzXsVF; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:36:27 -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 997523A0C97; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 9so4546787ljc.8; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:36:26 -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=rIxOt3uqbhGtBAXHeGn8Nditan4SG0ibn+J/KgLzWdM=; b=ZntIXDAabs05JZ5cmk5gS9jsttHS/0zZbPeSwsu/GHsAU70jgZu1ZpvFKAW/8toOl2 4ii0qA+rIFYwAv0Z9TLp5Rbh4J29CCGQvD3silo4/Rm+C7uwNlyOFISBNN7td9dKGOdO OZnj/MQq1XCcP9sM8dgUx5OH/Z8heBiXGwB3nSiOqLrnF+x5WO4Cb9RKoLBZApmlBx7l A82so4UT8S15mHAYgvI9qJCSndCBwOpWcdDb9YtZ3TRTfuz6zK+cLR4nP7d8iGtU5zl8 XP1IwYNVoFTkscuKlaMfAy/8FvzKz4qdo8YyleBgsc4DAgGut7SzEZCF3qrcPFR8VQ// LMdw==
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=rIxOt3uqbhGtBAXHeGn8Nditan4SG0ibn+J/KgLzWdM=; b=fUn7DTI1H+wFD2gozerA9eNOta8XFXz7H4Rzku5fjHmdEBxxI4/SjJ0xQAiDDmg6qi /rdB2DuiaxeIRS+BocHIe9S6rEyFbc2u/WARIbui6iqYpk0We2yT/DEtH2IGICHuk1XR FKec4HbjQOjf02MV1wvDv4HHHdtsJCfs2ggfd+h+ablyaZIsX49eqSe9ulNfcxTTx3p0 UBphco4D4iXZKemCEToVcuPt39Z3KnIXyNj/+1wAOD86pqLsWVNJ1tJmNZ9dihAZhgQM TpTifm6HE5UOHuDtUbK0FonyvHsDIS1zIMfjuQKBQn8J3ZIbQLRnKJDA6vVbBZj8Bvs7 glKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531F9g3vaA7NO5gERFIx1Dg8PgS5ckohOt8yzOdT0sjSbjcsTlMe RmAxvz+vOJx3ehOSaiBM0Q03AfH66wsIwtmDfkpRTg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzXRLfIU0MWYGI6wNKbsg7J50jnqePbNoYVO5TRDtFqEriUbsKd8hCVaQUE+FWSuHrs9kQwdVN9AJRRGOa6usU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:54e:: with SMTP id q14mr449820ljp.279.1592426184709; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200127221705.GB17622@pfrc.org> <20200616211057.GA21373@pfrc.org> <CAMMESsxsPKM+jnLESOh=C+xyrw8+iGySXuMDo3TFTdU2RgUkDg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmWiw8HFFZfcPPb_D8EutEacbbkK9=btbj6MM4SKAnV9yg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESsz+cCq7Jh9m-wvWsSDCG6QoOWv1XZpeMBkjt69Asbk5dw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsz+cCq7Jh9m-wvWsSDCG6QoOWv1XZpeMBkjt69Asbk5dw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:36:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmW69eyX05=e9ee-K3+44CP1LMCK0Bu_Q8HNf6GVMVjOPA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan IESG status
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: bfd-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001219fa05a84d9d19"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/jy7pgPZG8GJGFmi4Zf4Ut6drFFg>
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 20:36:30 -0000

Hi Alvaro,
thank you for the clarification. I will update the reference by using the
text you've suggested.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:59 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Greg:
>
> Rfc5881 already specifies using GTSM…this document depends on rfc5881, so
> the reference should be the BFD behavior.
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On June 17, 2020 at 2:40:52 PM, Greg Mirsky (gregimirsky@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> 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