The one on datatracker has been trimmed to keep only the newer version. Regards,Reshad. ======================================================================================= =======================================================================================Update December 31st 2024 on draft-ietf-bfd-stability-16 ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?Strong consensus of a few individuals. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?None. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)?No implementations and no known plans to implement. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place.No and no. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.The document has undergone a YANG Doctor review.The document has undergone a SECDIR review and has been updated based on discussions around that review. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? Yes. If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? No errors. Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? Yes. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. YANG has been validated. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?The document is clearly written and nearly ready.There are some comments to be addressed before the document is handed off tothe responsible AD:https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/jgsqN8Z1O-IS2p8PJ15zfhqd8Hk/ 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?As mentioned above, there has been a SECDIR review. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Experimental. Why is this the proper type of RFC? Main reason is that there is no known implementations or plans. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. Waiting for response from 2 co-authors. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? Yes. If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. N/A. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) Only warnings are for outdated references. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. None. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. None. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? None. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. This is an experimental document. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). Section 8 matches the rest of the document and confirming the above whereapplicable. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. Assignment from the “BFD Authentication Types” registry requires Expert review.Checked https://www.iana.org/assignments/bfd-parameters/bfd-parameters.xhtml [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ ======================================================================================= Update July 23rd 2020. Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-stability-06 General: NULL authentication TLV is still used, should be replaced with NULL authentication type or section as appropriate.Be consistent for Null v/s NULL (NULL Auth is used in bfd-optimizing-authentication) Introductions/detect lost packet/detect lost packets/ Section 3 Use Cases:s/any BFD packet loss if loss/any BFD packet loss if the loss/s/BFD implementation/BFD implementations/Where the text says “failure of a link”, might be better to say “failure of a datapath”?Informative references to CFM and TWAMP would be useful Section 4“by appending the Null-Authentication type “. Suggest “by appending an authentication section with the NULL Authentication type “ Section 5“BFD uses authentication TLV”, suggest change to “BFD uses an authentication section”. “BFD packets MUST include NULL-Auth TLV”. Change to “BFD control packets MUST include an authentication section with the NULL Authentication type” Section 5.1 “The first BFD NULL-Auth type processed by the receiver…”. Change to “The first BFD authentication section with the NULL Authentication type, in a valid BFD control packet, processed by the receiver” .Also, does it have to be NULL Auth, I believe it can be any auth with sequence number? If that’s the case change to “The first BFD authentication section with a non-zero sequence number, in a valid BFD control packet, processed by the receiver is used for….”. =================== (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Standards Track as indicated on title page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary:This document describes extensions to the Bidirectional ForwardingDetection (BFD) protocol to measure BFD stability. Specifically, itdescribes a mechanism for detection of BFD control packet loss. Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary:There have been many discussions since 2014 on this document. The document has been improved and simplified based on feedback+discussions, e.g. timestamps was removed. Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? The document is well-written, concise and technically accurate, but requires some editorial changes before being forwarded to the IESG. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Reshad Rahman, BFD co-chair. Who is the Responsible Area Director? Martin Vigoureux is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd has gone through the document, email archive and meeting minutes. Comments have been addressed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? None (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? WG consensus is solid. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 1 comment regarding document date being 106 days in the past. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? None (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. None (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). N/A (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.N/A (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?N/A COMMENTS General:- Don’t use NULL-authentication TLV, use RFC5880 language. e.g.NULL-authentication type.- s/control frame/control packet/ (reuse same terms as in RFC5880)- CC frames is not defined in BFD, use “control packets” instead?- Terminology section would help. In there: secure sequence numbers, meticulous authentication etc could be added.- Missing “the”, “an” in a few sentences. Introduction Following sentence is long and not super clear, what’s the essence of the point it’s trying to make?I’m having a hard time digesting “…, the tolerance for lost or delayed frames in the Detection Time,”. Is it just saying that Detection Time is usually set to smallest value and because of this there’s little tolerance for delayed/lost packets? Needs tweaking. .In order to prevent significant data loss due to a datapath failure, the tolerance for lost or delayed frames in the Detection Time, as defined in BFD [RFC5880] is set to the smallest feasible value. s/does not propose BFD extension/does not propose any BFD extension/
Requirements LanguagePlease put this is a separate (sub)section later in the doc, e.g. after intro. Add RFC8174, and have RFCs 2119 and 8174 as normative references. 2. Use cases Legacy BFD? Why not say BFD as specified in RFC5880. Or add “Legacy BFD” in terminology section. Instead of “dead interval”, use “Detection Time” as defined in RFC5880.s/This draft/This document/s/enables BFD engine/enables the BFD engine/Instead of “BFD engine”, use “BFD implementation”? I understand what you mean by “BFD engine”, and ok if you keep it, but it’s not a term I’ve seen in BFD drafts/RFCs. s/In a faulty datapath scenario, operator/In a faulty datapath scenario, an operator/Add references for CFM and TWAMP in last paragraph? 3. BFD Null-Authentication TLV Rename to BFD Null-Authentication section?s/BFD control frame that do not/BFD control packets that do not/ Suggestion: consider putting this is a sub-section of section 4 “Theory of operation”? 4. Theory of operations s/4. Theory of operations/4. Theory of operation/ s/This mechanism allows operator/This mechanism allows operators/ 4.1 Following needs clarification. What is “appropriately recorded”? For secure sequence number, add normative reference to draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers. When using secure sequence numbers, if the expected values are pre-calculated, the matched value must be appropriately recorded to detect lost frames.
