Hi Ketan, Thanks for your prompt reply, about the IANA considerations, if the “TBD” is defined in another document, then the DISCUSS moves to section 7 where “TBD” is mentioned as there is a need for a normative reference to the other I-D. I.e., the problem must be solved anyway 😊
Regards -éric From: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> Date: Monday, 25 August 2025 at 15:16 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Reshad Rahman <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-29: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi Eric, I'll try to clarify and the authors can update/correct as well. On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 4:36 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-29: Discuss 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-optimizing-authentication/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-29 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below blocking DISCUSS points, some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Reshad Rahman for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## DISCUSS (blocking) As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise. ### Sections 6 & 7 Should this document formally update RFC 5880 ? Especially based on section 7 `This document repurposes the "Reserved" field as the "Optimized Authentication Mode" field when used for authentication types for optimized BFD procedures.` KT> Please check https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5880#section-4 for the optional authentication section. Further the sections 4.2/3/4 define the authentication sections for their respective types. This document lays the framework for a new set of optimized authentication types (which are specified in the accompanying sequence number document) and hence defines a new common authentication section layout for those optimized auth types. Hence, I don't think this qualifies as an "update" (but that is a grey area). More importantly though, this being experimental is not matured enough to "update" RFC588 that is PS. So perhaps the "updates" debate can be kicked down the road if/when this document gets promoted to PS? ### Section 7 s/excepting that Auth Type is *still* TBD and that *Reserved* is set to 1/excepting that Auth Type is TBD and that *"Optimized Authentication Mode"* is set to 1/ As 'Reserved' has just been reused, then the new field name must be used. ### Section 7.1 The text is about OptMode being 1 or 2 while the previous section introduced these values with "For example" and restricting it to MD-5-related authentication. It is either an example (like section 7) or normative (like section 7.1). ### Section 9 Even more critical, there is no request to the IANA to allocate the `TBD` authentication type in https://www.iana.org/assignments/bfd-parameters/bfd-parameters.xhtml#bfd-parameters-2 KT> For the above 3 points, I will let the authors respond. However, the context is that the specific types are defined in the accompanying sequence number documents while this document provides the common framework. So, the IANA allocation happens in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-23.html#name-bfd-auth-types . There were a lot of discussions during the AD evaluation of these 3 documents, and the contents of the document is an outcome of that. Welcome any text suggestions to clarify the structure that I just described. Thanks, Ketan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Section 3 In `If optimized authentication mechanisms are in use` the 'optimized authentication mechanisms' have not been formally specified as 'the mechanisms described in this document'. Suggest adding it either here '(i.e., this specication)' or in the terminology section. Unsure whether this draft is the right place to say "SHA-2 is left for future study" (if BFD does not support it). ### Section 3.1 s/do not require a poll sequence, such as a bfd.DetectMult are/do not require a poll sequence, such as a bfd.DetectMult*,* are/ ? ### Section 4 Readers (including me) will welcome an expansion of ISAAC. ### Section 5 Is it about "reauthentication" or "authentication refresh" ? ### Section 8 s/Optimizing Authentication YANG Model/Optimizing Authentication YANG Data Model/ ?
