I suppose it might also be considered an attractive option to use as a covert channel, if the zero padding requirement wasn’t there. But it is so that should be ok.
$0.02, —John > On Jan 8, 2025, at 9:18 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > 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 >
