Dear Carlos, thank you for your thorough review of the updated version, helpful and constructive suggestions. Please find my answers in-line tagged GIM>>.
Regards, Greg On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:49 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Greg, > > I have not checked the diff and the new text regarding the Eth MAC and mgmt > VNI. > > However, these diffs also include a change that you did not mention: TTL / > Hop Limit handling, which is one of the comments I had made. > > In that context, thank you very much! since this update partially (although > largely) addresses my comment. > > Still missing: > > TTL or Hop Limit: MUST be set to 255 in accordance with the > Generalized TTL Security Mechanism [RFC5881]. > > CMP: this is an incorrect citation. The GTSM is RFC 5082, not RFC 5881. I > recommend adding a Reference to RFC 5082 (as I’d suggested before).. GIM>> Agreed, will change the reference to RFC 5082 > > Validation of TTL or Hop Limit of the inner IP packet is performed as > described in Section 5 [RFC5881]. > > CMP: This is an oversimplification. S5 of RFC 5881 explains not only how to > validate TTL/HL, but also about demultiplexing tulles in presence of auth and > various header fields. GIM>> I've compared Section 3 of RFC 5082 and Section 5 of RFC 5881 and still believe that for this document the reference to Section 5 of RFC 5881 is more helpful to a reader and an implementor. Section 5 provides an explicit specification on handling TTL/HC != 255 by a receiving BFD system. I think that it is important to reference Section 5, as the handling of TTL/HC != 255 is different depending on whether the BFD session is in unauthenticated or authenticated mode. Would you agree? > > 9. Security Considerations > > CMP: A discussion on the positive impact of using GTSM would help here. GIM>> The Security Consideration section in RFC 5881 provides the excellent text on the benefit of using GTSM in both, unauthenticated and authenticated, modes. the last para in the Security Consideration section of this document mentioned the discussion in several RFCs, including in RFC 5881. Do you think that an additional text about the use of GTSM in single-hop BFD should be added in this document? Could you suggest some text? > > 11. Acknowledgments > > CMP: Both professional courtesy as well as proper record and provenance > tracking suggest keeping an updated Acknowledgements section. GIM>> My apologies, I've updated the working version accordingly. > > Best, > > — > Carlos Pignataro, [email protected] > > “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself > sound more photosynthesis." > > 2020/05/04 午後6:58、Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>のメール: > > Dear All, > my apologies for holding off this upload. The update is to address a > set of comments related to the use of destination Ethernet MAC in the > inner Ethernet frame that encapsulates a BFD control message. A new > section on the use of the Management VNI has been added and the > document now considers only the case of using the Management VNI to > transmitted receive BFD control messages. > Always welcome your questions and comments. > > Regards, > Greg > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, May 4, 2020 at 3:50 PM > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-11.txt > To: Mallik Mudigonda <[email protected]>, Sudarsan Paragiri > <[email protected]>, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>, Santosh > Pallagatti <[email protected]>, Vengada Prasad Govindan > <[email protected]> > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-11.txt > has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan > Revision: 11 > Title: BFD for VXLAN > Document date: 2020-05-04 > Group: bfd > Pages: 11 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-11.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-11 > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan > Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-11 > > Abstract: > This document describes the use of the Bidirectional Forwarding > Detection (BFD) protocol in point-to-point Virtual eXtensible Local > Area Network (VXLAN) tunnels used to form an overlay network. > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > >
