Hi, Greg, On Feb 11, 2018, at 9:03 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Carlos, thank you for your thorough review and detailed comments. Anytime — but just to be clear, this is not a thorough review. I spent a quick scan through some sections only, which triggered these coarse set of comments. Please find my responses in-lined tagged GIM>>. More inline. Regards, Greg On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpign...@cisco.com<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: 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”? GIM>> Agree, will remove the quotation marks around 3784. Proposed update: OLD TEXT: Session of type MultipointTail MUST identify the packet as BFD with the help of destination UDP port number "3784" on IP multipoint path. NEW TEXT: Session of type MultipointTail MUST identify packet received on an IP multipoint path as BFD control packet if the destination UDP port value equals 3784. Who identifies the packets? The "session"? Or should this be the tail/receiver/tailend? 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<http://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)? GIM>> Since the sentence refers to MultipointTail, I conclude this refers to the destination endpoint. As Reshad agreed to s/use/expect/ here's proposed update to the sentence: OLD TEXT: 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<http://127.0.0.0/8>" range for IPv4 or "0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104" range for IPv6 ([RFC8029]). NEW TEXT: For multipoint LSPs, when IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD control packets is used, MultipointTail MUST expect destination UDP port 3784 and destination IP address in 127.0.0.0/8<http://127.0.0.0/8> range for IPv4 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6 ([RFC8029]). In addition to pointing to RFC 8029, for things like Section 2.1, etc., this is a new requirement. RFC 8029 does not specify the use of those IP addresses with UDP Port 3784. Hence the citation should go on a separate sentence. Use of other types of encapsulation for multipoint LSP is outside the scope of this document. CMP: For BFD Control? GIM>> Will add 'of the BFD control message over' and remove 'for' to result: Use of other types of encapsulation of the BFD control message over multipoint LSP is outside the scope of this document. Thanks. 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 :-) Seems you missed this comment. Thanks! Carlos. 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/>
