Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Use Cases
RFC 7882
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
1) Sec 3.7: This section describes BFD Fault Isolation. It isn't clear to me that the S-BFD base spec has addressed this case at all. More clarification would be nice - either indicating that this use-case wasn't handled or having a small pointer to how it was.
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
Shouldn't Requirement #10 explicitly state active and passive attacks? That way you cover interception and passive listening too.
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
While this document has a security requirement, I believe there is also a risk of misconfiguration: if no handshake is performed, a node might send S-BFD packets to a receiver that does not exists or is not aware of it or sits at a different part of the network that is somewhere else than expected which can overload the network accidentally. Should this be mentioned in this doc (or somewhere else... or both)?
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection