Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-isis-bfd-tlv-02

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

At 12:55 AM -0700 7/26/10, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>...
>
>The mechanism introduced by this draft is used to determine when/if to
>use BFD session state as a prerequisite to forming an IS-IS adjacency
>and/or to trigger IS-IS adjacency state transitions. It does not make
>any changes to the operation of BFD itself - which I think your wording
>may unintentionally imply. How about:
>
>"The TLV defined within this document describes an addition to the IS-IS
>Hello protocol. Inappropriate use of this TLV could prevent an IS-IS
>adjacency from forming or lead to failure to detect bidirectional
>forwarding failures - each of which is a form of denial of service.
>However, a party who can
>manipulate the contents of this TLV is already in a position to create
>such a denial of service by disrupting IS-IS routing in other ways."
>

That text is much better. I think it is also worth including a 
sentence, as you did later in your message, noting that the use of 
this new TLV in the IS-IS hello exchange is independent of the use of 
authentication for that exchange or for BFD.

Steve