Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 4, 2nd paragraph: " If the port is not 7784, then the packet MUST be looked up to locate a corresponding SBFDInitiator session or classical BFD session based on the value from the "your discriminator" field in the table describing BFD discriminators. " Do I understand correctly that whether or not the destination port is 7784 tells you if this is an "initial" packet vs a "reflected" packet? If the destination port is not 7784, how do you know it’s not some competely different protocol? Do you assume the receiver has no other UDP based services? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - 2: This doesn't seem to allow an administrator to configure different listening ports by administrative action. Is that the intent? Also, why does it matter if the source port is 7784? - 6.1, first bullet: Does this imply that the initiator must listen for reflected packets at its source port? Was that explicitly mentioned somewhere that I missed? Editorial: -5.1.1, first paragraph: I had trouble parsing the last sentence in the paragraph.
