Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14: 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-large-packets/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Brian Trammell for his TSVART review. As this specification says - "The contents of this additional payload MUST be zero" for bfd.PaddedPduSize. I would like to discuss the consequences of not having all zeros in the additional payload - shall this still be treated as valid bfd payload and parsed but the MTU discovery would fail or shall it raise some protocol violation error? I didn't find any error handling in this specification. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- One more comment - if the intention is to have this bfd in large packets to discover the path MTU, why don't we say so in the abstract of this document.
