Hi Jeff, thank you for your response. It seems to me that the values of these fields are implementation specific and don't impact interoperability. If that is correct, then I propose the following updates: OLD TEXT: Within the BFD Unaffiliated Echo packet, the "Desired Min TX Interval" and "Required Min RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880] SHOULD be populated with a value of 1 second (1,000,000 microseconds). These values, however, are ignored and not used to calculate the Detection Time. NEW TEXT: Within the BFD Unaffiliated Echo packet, the "Desired Min TX Interval" and "Required Min RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880], SHOULD be initialized before the transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Furthermore, these values MUST NOT be used to calculate the Detection Time.
OLD TEXT: The "Required Min Echo RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880] MUST be set to zero. NEW TEXT: The "Required Min Echo RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880] SHOULD be set before the transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt. Regards, Greg On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 8:00 AM Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > Greg, > > Flipping the question around somewhat: > > These portions of the PDU will be serialized onto the wire. > An implementation could choose values locally to help its own procedures. > Perhaps for heuristic tuning of the session. So, there's argument for > "these values are left to the implementation" - or as you note "this value > is ignored". > > What text would YOU want to see present in this draft? > > In the absence of an implementation having an opinion about the behavior > for its own purposes, I believe we want some boring "expected" value > minimally as implementation advice. IMO, that's one step nicer than > whatever memory noise is left from your allocated buffer that might > disclose something unexpected from your implementation internals. (See > various virtualized host environment bugs relating to memory ownership.) > > -- Jeff > > > > > On Apr 12, 2023, at 10:22 AM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear, Authors and all, > my apologies for the belated comments. I greatly appreciate your > consideration of the notes below: > > - Given that it is stated that the values of "Desired Min TX Interval" > and "Required Min RX Interval" in an Unaffiliated BFD Echo message are > ignored, what do you see as the value of using the normative language in: > > Within the BFD Unaffiliated Echo packet, the "Desired Min TX > Interval" and "Required Min RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880] SHOULD > be populated with a value of 1 second (1,000,000 microseconds). > > > - As I understand it, the "Required Min Echo RX Interval" value is not > used in the Unaffiliated BFD Echo. If that is the case, what do you see as > the value of requiring it to be zeroed: > > The "Required Min Echo RX Interval" defined in [RFC5880] MUST be set > > to zero. > > Perhaps stating that the "Required Min Echo RX Interval" value is ignored > in the Unaffiliated BFD Echo is sufficient. WDYT? > > > Regards, > Greg > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 8:27 AM Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo >> >> Working Group, >> >> The Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo has >> completed. My judgment is that it has weak, but positive support to >> proceed to publication. This isn't atypical of BFD work at this point in >> the BFD Working Group's life. >> >> The next steps for the document: >> >> 1. Please continue to iterate through the issues raised during last >> call. I will be summarizing them in the original WGLC thread. I suspect >> we can reach conclusion for them shortly. >> >> 2. Each of the authors needs to make an attestation as to whether they're >> aware of any additional IPR applicable to this document. The rest of the >> Working Group, as per BCP 78/79[1] should also disclose of any applicable >> IPR if they're aware of it. >> >> One thing that makes this document particularly interesting is that this >> work is covered partially under work done in BBF in TR-146. This will be >> noted in the shepherd writeup. >> >> >> -- Jeff >> >> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html#section-5.1 >> >> >> >
