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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 24 April 2023 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 5188FC1522DB; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 cu14SDTorJ6K; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE1EC14F693; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (104-10-90-238.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [104.10.90.238]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A38F1E037; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.3\))
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230422155744.GA7173@pfrc.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:37:02 -0400
Cc: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo@ietf.org, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DECFE673-EB3D-4847-85FA-9214D869D697@pfrc.org>
References: <E3E52D3E-1DEB-42B0-97D3-75B4A9904F00@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmWRruoBteKxsXXX7UWJ4zo2C5ruyjS+XfA7-Cadt=juag@mail.gmail.com> <196C9D52-E144-4EFA-A25B-2453122DCB13@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmWN+6-m9p-GbHdS0MySwRjonYW43MPaZhh-K7FRVYL48w@mail.gmail.com> <9D4C734F-2D1A-4A2C-B452-0920B7101618@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmUabHhBVOnUfVMCqM_-BORKy+sj6HiTN-ezD-=mKC16oQ@mail.gmail.com> <BAE7E426-7CA7-4279-9736-234A2B97CEC2@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmVWbQhSrWyJyCcmV9wAJkX9wmt-7exakpT3rmWJUeyJCg@mail.gmail.com> <20230422155744.GA7173@pfrc.org>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/sRM8SI6QTYW2CneBQ5qr91xA82E>
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, 24 Apr 2023 13:37:05 -0000

Greg,


> On Apr 22, 2023, at 11:57 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
>>   Device A performs its initial demultiplexing of a BFD Unaffiliated
>>   Echo session using the source IP address or UDP source port.
>> Am I missing something?
> 
> You are likely not paying sufficient attention to the "initial" word in this
> sentence.
> [...]

> Thus, as per RFC 5880, §6.3:
> :    The method of demultiplexing the initial packets (in which Your
> :    Discriminator is zero) is application dependent, and is thus outside
> :    the scope of this specification.
> 
> and the immediately preceding paragraph:
> 
> :    Once the remote end echoes back the local discriminator, all further
> :    received packets are demultiplexed based on the Your Discriminator
> :    field only (which means that, among other things, the source address
> :    field can change or the interface over which the packets are received
> :    can change, but the packets will still be associated with the proper
> :    session).
> 
> If you believe a reminder of this detail is appropriate in the document,
> consider sending text covering the point.  That said, I'd suggest delaying
> until the authors have integrated the prior comments, which also include
> more clearly labeling the contents of the packets in their text.

Note that the -07 version of the document incorporates additional text reinforcing that existing procedures will be used after initial demultiplexing.

Please see if you believe this addresses your concerns.

-- Jeff