Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Mon, 03 April 2023 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 53BBFC1516EA for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Apr 2023 18:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d-f2oXGLAW88 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Apr 2023 18:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985ADC14CE5D for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Apr 2023 18:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4PqYCT0WyMz8R043; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 09:27:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app05.zte.com.cn ([10.55.22.121]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 3331Qv68076521; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 09:26:57 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app08[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 09:26:58 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 09:26:58 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b00642a2b62ffffffffe48-4190c
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202304030926584105893@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <20230321160207.GA7334@pfrc.org>
References: 20230321160207.GA7334@pfrc.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: jhaas@pfrc.org
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 3331Qv68076521
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 642A2B65.000/4PqYCT0WyMz8R043
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/ndzP--eFxHeSMHg8h5x2vZwlMhs>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:27:07 -0000

Jeff,






Thank you for initiating WGLC on this draft per request of the authors.


I support progressing this draft to publication (as a co-author).


I agree with you that the draft could use very high scrutiny.



Note that I've posted version -06 attempting to address your last call comments, and the detailed reply has been sent to the mailing list. Links as below.


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-06 




https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/si2-rPPZxe6l8tq8xJZEEY8DlDM/
 
Best Regards,


Xiao Min



Original



From: JeffreyHaas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年03月22日 00:02
Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023)


Working Group,
 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo/05/
 
The authors of draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo have requested WGLC.
 
The draft, in my opinion, is in fairly good shape.  However, since it
functions via looping packets back to itself and trying to exercise the
normal RFC 5880 state machine behaviors to a large extent, the draft could
use very high scrutiny for several matters:
 
- Does the state machine behave appropriately at all stages?
- Are the descriptions of the values of the BFD fields clear in all cases?
 
Please supply the authors and the Working Group with your feedback.
 
The intended finish date for this WGLC is 7 April, 2023.  This is one week
after the end of IETF 116.
 
Note that Reshad is an author on the draft, so I'll be handling the full set
of review and shepherding work.
 
-- Jeff