Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Use Cases
RFC 7882

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Comment (2016-05-02 for -06)
No email
send info
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.

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2016-05-03 for -06)
No email
send info
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)?

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2016-05-04 for -07)
No email
send info
Shouldn't Requirement #10 explicitly state active and passive attacks?  That way you cover interception and passive listening too.