Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-11: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Magnus Westerlund for the TSVART review, based on that review and my own read, I am supporting both Lars's and Roman's discuss. On top of that, as this document claims - "with "unsolicited BFD" there is potential risk for excessive resource usage by BFD from "unexpected" remote systems". This translates to me as potential injection of huge amount of traffic which is lacking a self-regulation mechanism in this specification. To large degrees the traffic volume could have random effects on the routing plane and what links are considered up etc. We can hide all these by saying "Deploy the feature only in certain "trustworthy" environment"", then I am completely missing the definition of "trustworthy" environment". I would like to discuss that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional comments - * This document also says - "When an Unsolicited BFD session goes down, an implementation MAY retain the session state for a period of time. Retaining this state can be useful for operational purposes." I am missing any discussion on the reduced functionality or any indication if the selected period time has any advantages or disadvantages. To be honest, without proper discussion or indication of some default values, I would remove the entire sentence or if this is just an additional implementation advice, I would drop the normative MAY.
