LGTM On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, Alia, > > Thanks, and sounds good. This is what we have implemented, which should > address both: > > @@ -122,9 +122,9 @@ > The BFD Echo port defined by [RFC5881], port 3785, is used for the > S-BFD Echo function on IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS environments. > SBFDInitiator sessions MUST transmit S-BFD echo packets with > - destination port 3785. This document defines only the UDP port value > - for the S-BFD Echo function. The source port and the procedures for > - the S-BFD Echo function are outside the scope of this document. > + destination port 3785. The setting of the UDP source port [RFC5881] > + and the procedures [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base] for the S-BFD Echo > + function are outside the scope of this document. > > 4. S-BFD Control Packet Demultiplexing > > @@ -138,13 +138,13 @@ > S-BFDReflector), then the packet MUST be looked up to locate a > corresponding SBFDReflector session based on the value from the "your > discriminator" field in the table describing S-BFD discriminators. > - If the port is not 7784, then the packet MUST be looked up to locate > - a corresponding SBFDInitiator session or classical BFD session based > - on the value from the "your discriminator" field in the table > - describing BFD discriminators. If the located session is an > - SBFDInitiator, then the destination IP address of the packet SHOULD > - be validated to be for self. If the packet is a classical BFD > - session, then the procedures from [RFC5880] apply. > + If the port is not 7784, but the packet is demultiplexed to be for an > + SBFDInitiator, then the packet MUST be looked up to locate a > + corresponding SBFDInitiator session based on the value from the "your > + discriminator" field in the table describing BFD discriminators. In > + that case, then the destination IP address of the packet SHOULD be > + validated to be for itself. If the packet demultiplexes to a > + classical BFD session, then the procedures from [RFC5880] apply. > > 5. Initiator Procedures > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ > > > Thanks, > > — Carlos. > > On May 3, 2016, at 12:30 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Alia, >> >> Thanks for the review and for these! Please see inline. >> >> > On May 2, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for >> > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04: Discuss >> > >> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> > introductory paragraph, however.) >> > >> > >> > Please refer to >> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> > >> > >> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip/ >> > >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > DISCUSS: >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > I think that these are both simple fast issues to resolve. >> > >> > 1) Sec 3: "This document defines only the UDP port value >> > for the S-BFD Echo function. The source port and the procedures for >> > the S-BFD Echo function are outside the scope of this document." >> > Please add a reference to the S-BFD base document for defining where the >> > procedures are found. >> > >> > Where, precisely, is the source port defined? It wasn't in the S-BFD >> > base >> > document. This seems like a hole. Can you please clarify? >> >> This is done exactly as in RFC 5881, purposefully. I can add a clarifying >> sentence like: >> >> OLD: >> This document defines only the UDP port value >> for the S-BFD Echo function. The source port and the procedures for >> the S-BFD Echo function are outside the scope of this document. >> >> NEW: >> S-BFD echo follows the BFD echo definitions of [RFC 5881]. >> Consequently, this document defines only the UDP port value >> for the S-BFD Echo function; the source port and the procedures for >> the S-BFD Echo function are outside the scope of this document. >> > > How about a reference by the source port to [RFC 5881] and a reference > for the procedures for the S-BFD Echo function > [draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base]? > > What wasn't clear to me - not having recently read RFC 5881 in detail - was > that the UDP source port was defined in RFC 5881. I knew the procedures > were > in draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base. > > >> > >> > 2) Sec 4: " If the port is not 7784, then the packet MUST be looked up >> > to locate >> > a corresponding SBFDInitiator session or classical BFD session based >> > on the value from the "your discriminator" field in the table >> > describing BFD discriminators. " >> > >> > I assume that you mean that UDP source port is used to look up the >> > appropriate receiver. >> > If that receiver handles BFD and S-BFD packets, then the "your >> > discriminator" field is used >> > to identify the BFD session. PLEASE clarify that because this reads as >> > if BFD is the only >> > application that uses UDP. >> > >> >> Indeed, very much so. I suggest: >> >> OLD: >> If the port is not 7784, then the packet MUST be looked up to locate >> a corresponding SBFDInitiator session or classical BFD session based >> on the value from the "your discriminator" field in the table >> describing BFD discriminators. If the located session is an >> SBFDInitiator, then the destination IP address of the packet SHOULD >> be validated to be for self. If the packet is a classical BFD >> session, then the procedures from [RFC5880] apply. >> >> NEW: >> If the port is not 7784, but the packet is demultiplexed to be for an >> SBFDInitiator, then the packet MUST be looked up to locate >> a corresponding SBFDInitiator session based >> on the value from the "your discriminator" field in the table >> describing BFD discriminators. In that case, >> then the destination IP address of the packet SHOULD >> be validated to be for itself. If the packet demultiplexes to a >> classical BFD >> session, then the procedures from [RFC5880] apply. >> >> Would that work? >> > > Sure - sounds good. Thanks, > Alia > > >> Thanks, >> >> — Carlos. >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >
