Hi Mahesh,
Inline.
On Friday, February 21, 2025 at 03:10:41 PM EST, Mahesh Jethanandani
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Reshad,
Thank you for a thorough review of the document and sorry for the delay in
getting to these updated comments. And thanks to Ashesh for working through the
comments. This is ultimately his feedback.
On Dec 31, 2024, at 12:06 PM, Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I am in the process of (re)doing the shepherd writeup for
draft-ietf-bfd-stability and reviewed -16, here are my comments.
Regards,Reshad.
7.2 YANG Module
grouping lost-packet-count { leaf lost-packet-count {
if-feature "stability"; type yang:counter64; description
"Number of BFD packets that were lost without bringing the
session down. This counter should be present only if stability is
configured."; } description "Grouping of statistics related
to BFD stability."; }
- Let’s say detect multiplier is 3 (in both directions), and 5 BFD packets were
lost from R1 to R2 causing the session to go down after 3 losses. On receiving
a packet after the 5 losses, should R2 increase the counter above by 0 or 2?
Section 6.1 says, "The loss is detected by comparing the Sequence Number field
in successive BFD control packets. The Sequence Number in each successive
control packet generated on a BFD session by the transmitter is incremented by
one.”
We believe that this text should address this particular comment. No additional
text is needed.
<RR> I'm good with the text in 6.1. But the text in the YANG description
"Number of BFD packets that were lost without bringing the session down" is
contradicts that section IMO. It implies/says that lost packets that caused a
BFD session to go down are not counted in lost-packet-count?
Regards,Reshad.
- There’s a few mentions of “frames” in that section, it should instead refer
to BFD control packets.
Ok. We will fix this.
Mahesh [email protected]
