For reasons unknown to me, my ballot was not sent to the authors (or to the list). I'm including it below:
Deb Cooley Sec AD Many thanks to Christian Huitema for the extensive review and discussion. Section 1 or 3: I don't think it would hurt to add a sentence or two to remind the reader about both the high speed of the links (I think RFC 5880 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5880/> points to SONET) and the computation limits on the line cards. Section 5, para that starts 'If bfd.AuthSeqKnown is 0: The sentence is incomplete. Maybe 'is set to 1, then bfd.Rcv.AuthSeq...'? Section 5, last para.: This sentence conflicts (received Sequence Number MUST NOT be compared vs. bfd.Rcv.AuthSeq) with the previous paragraph (bfd.RcvAuthSeq+1 is equal to the received Sequence Number). I'm not sure what '.vs' means in this sentence, nor is it clear what 'discarding the BFD packets' means. Section 6: Titled 'Theory of Operation'. It is unclear what the purpose of this section is. This draft is about Null Authentication, I'm not sure why MD5, SHA1, and ISAAC are mentioned here. It is literally the only mention of MD5, SHA1 and ISAAC in the specification. (Possibly some of this information could be put in Security Considerations?) Section 9.2: While I didn't review this closely, I did notice that some changes in the template affect the first paragraph (which outlines some of the security required for these modules). Please update this.
