Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09: 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/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-base/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Section 11: I've had discussions with people from time to time about BFD and security. I think I've heard the claim made that authentication was too expensive. (Note: I am not saying that I accept that as a valid claim, but that's a different issue:-) Anyway, wouldn't the same issues apply here if they do to classical BFD? If not, great, and I'll quote you next time someone says crypto is too expensive. But if such claims are also to be made here, then why would you be specifying something that will not be used? - Do the implementations that are in-progress implement the BFD authentication schemes for S-BFD? - Why not recommend that the weaker options from rfc5880 not be used? At least saying to not send passwords in clear over networks would be a good thing. - This document could do with an editing pass. There are quite a few minor grammatical issues that make this a harder read. I guess the RFC editor will fix those though, and they're non-fatal, but seems like a pity to not have done that already.
