Hi Carlos, thank you for your thorough review and detailed comments. Please find my responses in-lined tagged GIM>>.
Regards, Greg On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < 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. > 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)? > 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" 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 range for IPv4 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6 ([RFC8029]). > 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. > 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 > > *“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 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> <24242e5637af428891c4db731e7765 > ad.jpg> > E: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com > www.zte.com.cn > Original Mail > *Sender: *ReshadRahman(rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com> > *To: *gregory mirsky10211915;rtg-bfd@ietf.org <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" <gregory.mir...@ztetx.com> > *Date: *Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:33 PM > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" < > 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 > www.zte.com.cn > > > > > >
