Hi, Greg,
When looking for this specific sentence, I got a chance to scan through the
document a bit.
It seems to me there are still a number of editorials and potentially
non-editorials to be fixed.
Looking at S4.8 only:
BFD packets received on tails for an IP multicast group MUST be
consumed by tails and MUST NOT be forwarded to receivers. Session of
type MultipointTail MUST identify the packet as BFD with the help of
destination UDP port number "3784" on IP multipoint path.
CMP: There are a number of “the” or “a[n]” articles missing.
CMP: What is “with the help of”? What is "port number "3784" on IP multipoint
path”?
For multipoint LSPs, when IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD control packets
is used, MultipointTail MUST use destination UDP port "3784" and
"127.0.0.0/8" range for IPv4 or "0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104" range for
IPv6 ([RFC8029]). Packets identified as BFD packets MUST be consumed
by MultipointTail and demultiplex as described in Section 4.13.2
.
CMP: The first sentence is very confusing (besides the “MUST use” that you
already called out and that I agree).
CMP: For example, is this the source or destination endpoint? Which address is
this (i.e., Destination)?
Use of other types of encapsulation for multipoint LSP is outside the
scope of this document.
CMP: For BFD Control?
Also, checking the following section:
4.13.1. Reception of BFD Control Packets
The following procedure replaces section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880].
…
If bfd.SessionType is PointToPoint, update the Detection Time as
described in [RFC5880] section 6.8.4. Otherwise, update the
Detection Time as described in Section 4.11 above.
CMP: The actual set of citations is not clear. If this is a replacement to
section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880], then why a citation like “[RFC5880] section 6.8.4"?
Isn’t it implied that it is RFC 5880? Or conversely, if it is a replacement
updating RFC 5880, how does “in Section 4.11 above” work when inserted in RFC
5880? Its ask relative :-)
Thanks!
—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com>
“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound
more photosynthesis."
On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:14 AM,
gregory.mir...@ztetx.com<mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com> wrote:
Hi Reshad,
thank you for your consideration. I've came across what looks as simple
editorial change. Appreciate your comment.
In the second paragraph of section 4.8 Packet consumption on tails the following
For multipoint LSPs, when IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD control packets
is used, MultipointTail MUST use destination UDP port "3784" ...
reads akwardly because, I think, of 'MUST use'. I propose simple s/use/look
for/ or s/use/expect/. What do you think? Is the text god as-is or minor
editing may help?
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
<9ae3e214c17d49ed935d87c674ba3ee2.jpg> <24242e5637af428891c4db731e7765ad.jpg>
E: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com<mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn/>
Original Mail
Sender: ReshadRahman(rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>
To: gregory mirsky10211915;rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
<rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Date: 2018/02/08 11:03
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (last round)
<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<mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>"
<gregory.mir...@ztetx.com<mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>>
Date: Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:33 PM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>,
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>"
<rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto: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
<image001.gif>
<image002.gif>
E: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com<mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn/>
