Gorry,
> On Oct 16, 2025, at 6:45 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14/10/2025 06:47, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: >> Hi Gorry, >> >> I would like to follow up on your DISCUSS and comments on this document. The >> authors have posted v35 of the document that clarifies what is meant by >> "optimizing". Can you check if that is now clarified and ok with you? >> >> If not, then I would like to offer some suggestions (to you and the authors) >> to consider: >> >> Lightweight BFD Authentication >> CSPRNG Based BFD Authentication >> Alternating BFD Authentication >> Alternating Between Regular and Lightweight BFD Authentication >> >> Thanks, >> Ketan >> > Thanks Ketan, I see the improved abstract, and I do think this is helpful. > > I am still unsure the present title is appropiate. I would still ask if a > change of title us possible. From my understanding, which is limited to what > I saw in the final document, I think any of these would be good. > > I'd suggest either: Lightweight BFD Authentication or Alternating BFD > Authentication > > Really, let's not. Neither of these is particularly better. For "lightweight", one would think the rather long security AD review about the use of words like "strong" would tell us to try to avoid "light". Light vs. what? It's not intended to be light - the mechanism uses a pairing of a stronger mode and a less strong mode - which is what made the security AD reviewers "happier". And, in the future, a "stronger lightweight' mode is possible - or likely. If you pair SHA-3 and CHACHA, is it still "light"? Probably not. And this isn't even particularly alternating. The authentication mode gets a sub-state with this optimization profile, not alternating between between one auth type and another. (We did evaluate that as an implementation choice and had to discard that option.) Instead, I'd ask if the text discussing what optimization is being referred to is clear in the document, particularly the abstract. > ... but, I think others may understand better any sensititivies surrounding > the title, so I will take advice from you, let's discuss briefly. I am now > eager to close this DISCUSS and see the document published! > > Gorry > > (WIT AD) > -- Jeff
