Hi Alvaro, thank you for the clarification. I will update the reference by using the text you've suggested.
Regards, Greg On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:59 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Greg: > > Rfc5881 already specifies using GTSM…this document depends on rfc5881, so > the reference should be the BFD behavior. > > Alvaro. > > On June 17, 2020 at 2:40:52 PM, Greg Mirsky (gregimir...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Hi Alvaro, > thank you for the suggestion. I have a question. The current version > references RFC 5082: > TTL or Hop Limit: MUST be set to 255 in accordance with the > Generalized TTL Security Mechanism [RFC5082]. > RFC 5881, while stating the requirement for the TTL or Hop Limit value, > refers to RFC 5082 as the text that explains the benefits of using 255 on a > single IP link. In both documents, RFC 5082 is listed as a normative > reference. Would using RFC 5082 be acceptable or you suggest changing it to > RFC 5881? > > Regards, > Greg > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:37 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On June 16, 2020 at 5:01:57 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >> >> >> Hi! >> >> >> ... >> > > Open Issue 1: Discussion on TTL/Hop Limit = 1 >> > > >> > > Proposed Action: Greg has proposed text he will send to the working >> group >> > > suggesting GTSM procedures be utilized. The expected concern is how >> this >> > > impacts existing implementations. >> > >> > This issue is resolved. >> >> As I had mentioned before [1], the use of 255 should reference >> rfc5881: the requirement is one from the base spec, not a new one >> here. >> >> Suggestion> >> >> TTL or Hop Limit: MUST be set to 255 in accordance with [RFC5881]. >> >> >> I am clearing my DISCUSS. >> >> >> Thanks!! >> >> Alvaro. >> >> [1] >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/aiJW3KjYevY83wEDwVj488FSVl0/ >> >
