Hi Alvaro, On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd-08: No Objection > > ... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > (1) The first reference to I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint appears in Section 5; > please > add one in the Introduction when Multipoint BFD is initially mentioned. > Sounds reasonable. > (2) I think that using Normative Language (without quotation marks) to > mention > what is specified somewhere else can result in confusion as to which is the > authoritative document. This seems to be the case in Section 4: "If the M > bit > of the TRILL Header of the RBridge channel packet containing a BFD Control > packet is non-zero, the packet MUST be dropped [RFC7175]." The sentence > sounds > as if the behavior is specified in rfc7175, but that document says (in > Section > 3.2 (BFD Control Frame Processing)): "The following tests SHOULD be > performed...Is the M bit in the TRILL Header non-zero? If so, discard the > frame." Note that the behavior specified in rfc7175 doesn't use a > "MUST". The > text in this document seems to be used to explain why a new message is > needed, > and not in a Normative way -- please clarify the text so that there is no > inconsistency with respect to rfc7175. > I think it can be re-worded fairly easily to avoid being normative. > (3) Section 5 says that the "processing in Section 3.2 of [RFC7175] > applies...If the M bit is zero, the packet is discarded." Section 3.2 has > that > "SHOULD" that I mentioned above, and it also mentions potential security > issues, which are not referenced in this document. Are there reasons to > keep > the "SHOULD" and not use "MUST" instead (for the p2mp case)? If the same > semantics as in rfc7175 are kept, then the Security Considerations should > include the concerns. I'm pretty sure this was supposed to imply MUST given the inconsistency with reference to Section 4 as above. The wording is unconditional. It appears from your point (2) above that the authors were thinking that, in RFC 7175, the discard if the M bit was "wrong" was a MUST. So I think it can be changed to use MUST in this draft and that would avoid having to tweak the Security Considerations. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 <(508)%20333-2270> (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected]
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
