On Jul 26, 2021, at 12:26 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani
wrote:
> I wanted to understand the changes the authors need to make to move the draft
> forward.
>
> On this thread, @Jeff stated that you were looking for clarity on the
> following statement.
>
>Note: The first sequence number can
>
Alan, Mahesh,
Let's go back to base expectations.
Right now, the base BFD specification leverages HMAC MD5 or SHA-1 for its
security. The security mechanism is on every packet. Prior measurements
have shown that for the desired protocol rates for failure detection that
even those older mechanis
On Jul 26, 2021, at 10:14 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> So, what is needed:
> - A mechanism that can be used with the optimizing authentication extension.
> - That is light weight enough to justify it as being better than existing
> HMAC MD5 for periodic transmissions.
> - The value of which could be
Alan,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:35:01AM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote:
>
> That should be possible.
[...]
> Yes.
[...]
> Yes.
>
> > This means that the benefit for the feature would require a function that
> > can be run on a window of packets for predicted inputs and generate the pool
> > of n
Hi Jeff,
> On Jul 26, 2021, at 7:48 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>
> What's being requested is that our specifications have some specificity and
> a proposal be made for a suitable mechanism and how it integrates into BFD.
> :-)
Here are the set of changes that I propose we make to the draft to bri
