Exactly, exposing data (sometimes called leaking data) is the concern. I'm happy for you to make the sentence more sensible for this community.
Deb On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 9:17 AM Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > Deb, > > > > On Jan 7, 2025, at 11:49 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > How about: > > > > The addition of dynamic size packets adds the potential for leaks in the > padding. The padding requirements in this document are the mitigation for > these issues. > > Whereas I don't understand what "leaks in the padding" is intended to mean. > > Is the point you want that the zero is to avoid cases where random memory > buffers might be accidentally exposing data in the BFD payloads? That was > one of the intents for the padding contents being zero, but if that's the > point everyone has been hung up on, I can add a sentence making that > explicit. > > Note that "dynamic" sizes doesn't really impact this consideration. > > -- Jeff > >
