Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-stability-19: No Objection
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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this I-D on the about the operation of BFD. I have two concerns with the way in which performance is presented, these are non-blocking comments, because they do not seek to change the protocol, but even-so I do hope they are helpful in finalizing the text: ### Loss Some services might require very tight controls on loss, but in general Internet transports can be designed to be robust to occassional loss. I am concerned that the current text might make it seem like loss-less delivery was a goal, rather than seeing losss as a potential indication of performance issues. This is important when we might expect to see greater use of methods such as AQM that use loss to signal congestion. ### Out-of-Order Metrics I do have a concern that the optional support for out-of-order delivery may not be the most useful service metric, given that several IETF technologies have been developed that are robust to small levels of re-ordering, and hence strict comparison of increasing sequence numbers could make BFD more fragile than required by the transport layer (albeit the sort of re-ordering here might be very small (e.g., one reordering event). ### TSV-ART Review Please also note the TSV-ART and respond to the review provided by Mirja in: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bfd-stability-19-tsvart-lc-kuehlewind-2025-08-11/ and please respond to the topics identified in this review. #### In addition, it would seem helpful to provide a little discussion of the BFD receiver procedures and a reference to RFC 5880 section 6.8.1.
