IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-27

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 16 April 2024 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF81C14F61E; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 02:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 vGbqitGDYWFs; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 02:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400::25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB883C14F694; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 02:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 554BA80511; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 12:38:20 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1713260300; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: in-reply-to:references; bh=RyOLlDoWQnknb/r5Q+81CGkviV4AQb0GbZH22UwyTAg=; b=VWbh+y3cyzGrErH7WIwrv0ynfUJec/qKR+CM3/Fi2guVkx+0EWaHi2LkEz9MIXAcu4yrVL ayGnE7lmAehVhbNwYomHF4+m4ahRr1/eYqGnlTteCMGvpIElnZo8r71BGzRrn6jM4V5Sak oke6+8d1LxOc+0U4msrx1Y3MbfoqvicyUPIAyTYrU4sKw9KaauUtCS761UDCLiiXKhOTxR vMZ9qyDIpUYEiC7JvlEKPel8x6rNqrHr70RXkWZQdzh83FSl4kwLTXVNYxiajYwSNuy1ce BGIPrClIMNWKSmsIYUmpD9RaX+0PBvIzpeSCBDQ5p5uExGLAFvXQhgp1FHVbQw==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8E655FEE-262C-44F4-A4F1-22BFB68733DE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <6B20B16D-922B-4D59-BF70-F56CB30F3F7D@eggert.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 12:38:19 +0300
Cc: tsv-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Message-Id: <74FA82C1-2E08-4F28-8B8A-392AAAF7C7D9@eggert.org>
References: <171317752654.2149.17792638919970591493@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmWDZhWN5zrL7L=R0b8N0shXCeHTMMioyh4XqU+UYJfo0A@mail.gmail.com> <6B20B16D-922B-4D59-BF70-F56CB30F3F7D@eggert.org>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/B_IX48Mi626txH9R9tK2Z0A5tbU>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-27
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 09:38:34 -0000

On Apr 16, 2024, at 12:37, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2024, at 15:50, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> GIM>> Yes, the concern is for the number of entries. That is the result of addressing the comments by Andrew Allston. As Andrew explained, the concern is not for the size of the TLV but about the possible impact on the control plane (sort of DoS attack).  
> 
> OK, then please make it clear(er) that the limit is in bytes and applies to the Length field?

Whoops, I meant that it's in number of entries and does not apply to the length field.

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email