Jeff,
Please see inline... Original From: JeffreyHaas <jh...@pfrc.org> To: 肖敏10093570; Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>;rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年04月11日 01:34 Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo (ending 7 April, 2023) Xiao Min, On Apr 9, 2023, at 10:42 PM, <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> wrote: After further thought, I think copying the RFC 5881 advice is perhaps best answer. It provides wisdom that attempts to avoid redirect messages. However, since it's SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT, it doesn't make any existing implementations non-conformance; e.g. Broadcom. [XM]>>> Got it. I'll copy the RFC 5881 advice. Best Regards, Xiao Min -- Jeff From: JeffreyHaas <jh...@pfrc.org> "could" isn't one of our RFC 2119 normative terms. Do you believe "SHOULD" is more appropriate? [XM-2]>>> If we would like to use normative term for SA, then that can also apply to DA, suggest s/would/MUST. As Greg pointed out, there may be implicit conflict with RFC 5881 section 4 that says "In particular, the source address SHOULD NOT be part of the subnet bound to the interface over which the BFD Echo packet is being transmitted".
