Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

Greg, > On Apr 22, 2023, at 11:57 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >> Device A performs its initial demultiplexing of a BFD Unaffiliated >> Echo session using the source IP address or UDP source port. >> Am I missing something? > > You are likely not paying sufficient attention to the "initial"

Fwd: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

For whatever reason, Raj's attestation didn't make it into the BFD archives. So, a resend. -- Jeff > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Raj Chetan Boddireddy > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check > Date: April 11, 2023 at 9:18:59 AM EDT >

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

Greg, On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 04:05:14PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote: > I am not trying to stop this work but understand what is being standardized > by this document. So far, I don't see that there's anything that goes > outside of the BFD system that transmits self-addressed IP/UDP packets. The >

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

Hi Jeff, I am not trying to stop this work but understand what is being standardized by this document. So far, I don't see that there's anything that goes outside of the BFD system that transmits self-addressed IP/UDP packets. The fact that there are implementations using self-addressed IP/UDP

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

Greg, > On Apr 14, 2023, at 6:23 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > thank you for your kind consideration of the proposal. Indeed, leaving a > chunk of memory unchanged is a privacy issue. As I understand the proposal, > none of the fields defined in RFC 5880 for the BFD Control message

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

Hi Jeff, thank you for your kind consideration of the proposal. Indeed, leaving a chunk of memory unchanged is a privacy issue. As I understand the proposal, none of the fields defined in RFC 5880 for the BFD Control message is used for demultiplexing BFD sessions and/or packet validation. Is that

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

Jeff, Greg, Please see inline... Original From: JeffreyHaas To: Greg Mirsky ; Cc: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-e...@ietf.org ;rtg-bfd WG ; Date: 2023年04月14日 04:10 Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check Greg, > On Apr 12, 2023, at 1:09 PM, Greg Mir

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

Greg, In general, I think your clarifications are helpful. The one point I have minor disagreement is "SHOULD be populated/initialized" ... to what? One option is "an expected value". Personally, I'd find "an expected value. A suggested value is ..." and use the defaults below. That said, I

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

Greg, > On Apr 12, 2023, at 1:09 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Dear All, > after reading the document once more, I've realized that I need help with a > paragraph in Section 3. Please find my notes in-lined in the original text > below under the GIM>> tag: >Once a BFD Unaffiliated Echo

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

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

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

Dear All, after reading the document once more, I've realized that I need help with a paragraph in Section 3. Please find my notes in-lined in the original text below under the GIM>> tag: Once a BFD Unaffiliated Echo session is created on device A, it starts sending BFD Unaffiliated Echo

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

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

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

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

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

Greg,Sorry if the phrasing was confusing. We are looking for any undisclosed ipr. JeffOn Apr 10, 2023, at 9:05 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:Hi Jeff,I got confused by the "any additional IPR applicable to this document" in the announcement. AFAIK, there is no IPR disclosure for the 

转发: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

; Subject: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check 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 proc

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this document. Best Regards, Xiao Min Original From: JeffreyHaas To: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-e...@ietf.org ; Cc: rtg-bfd WG ; Date: 2023年04月10日 23:27 Subject: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check https

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

Hi Jeff, I got confused by the "any additional IPR applicable to this document" in the announcement. AFAIK, there is no IPR disclosure for the draft-cw-bfd-unaffiliated-echo , nor for the draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo

Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check

I am not aware of any additional IPR applicable to this document. Regards,Reshad. On Monday, April 10, 2023, 11:27:32 AM EDT, Jeffrey Haas 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 WGLC and IPR check

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