<Sorry for the delay>
Hi Greg,
I would go with normative SHOULD. What you proposed below is fine.
Regards,
Reshad.
From: "gregory.mir...@ztetx.com" <gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>
Date: Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:33 PM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
<rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
Hi Reshad,
you've said:
Hi Greg,
While OOB mechanism would improve security, my personal opinion is that we
should try to improve security without requiring an OOB mechanism. I think we
can add text to the security considerations to address the concerns below, e.g.
A tail SHOULD prevent the number of MultipointTail sessions from exceeding the
number of expected streams. The concern expressed in b) cannot be fixed by
what I proposed because of multiple streams. So just preventing the number of
MultipointTail sessions from exceeding the number of expected streams should be
good enough.
Regards,
Reshad.
If we make it normative SHOULD, i.e. s/should/SHOULD/ in the third
recommendation to the implementers:
The implementation SHOULD have a reasonable upper bound on the
number of MultipointTail sessions that can be created, with the
upper bound potentially being computed based on the number of
multicast streams that the system is expecting.
Or keep the lower case as it is consistent with the rest of the section, e.g.
'a MultipointTail session should not be created'?
Kind regards,
Greg Mirsky
Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D
Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
[cid:9ae3e214c17d49ed935d87c674ba3ee2]
[cid:24242e5637af428891c4db731e7765ad]
E: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com<mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn/>
