Hello Authors and Reshad (as the shepherding co-chair), All 3 BFD documents are now ready for approval following IESG evaluation (with some abstain positions) and I would like to share their individual status and some comments before I can take the next steps.
1) draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication a) There is a warning in the YANG module that needs to be fixed? b) I believe the reference to draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers should be informative and not normative? c) Reshad, since the document has undergone significant changes, it would be good to poll the WG to review the latest version to ensure there are no objections and consensus is still there to publish. 2) draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers a) Reshad, since the document has undergone significant changes, it would be good to poll the WG to review the latest version to ensure there are no objections and consensus is still there to publish. 3) draft-ietf-bfd-stability a) This document is pending updates and responses to several comments raised by the IESG. Authors need to take actions for the following threads: - Eric V's comments : https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/NojkOgcMgmG63jwwOZDVs6F3jCA/ - Med's comments : https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/RnsdDfptWEmHWLEb9dWijYVqii4/ - Gunter's comments : https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Af-fvNF0oJ_w-kvbDfL_yaJyTGE/ - Gorry's comments: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/-VyzPmoV65rCDZAFnDgk9sXJChw/ - Mirja's comments from TSVART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/JsqoFqNdmH-OwU_anOB0mgrXaBU/ - Deb's comments (look at the ballot) : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/ballot/#draft-ietf-bfd-stability_deb-cooley - Les's comments from IANA DE review : https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/PGNSrFq8st7SkeH1gqKaHHXUClg/ b) Reshad, post the closure of the above comments and document updates, this document would also require a poll of the WG to review the latest version to ensure there are no objections and consensus is still there to publish. While these documents were sent to me for processing as a set, I could send (1) and (2) to the RFC Editor without waiting for (3). Please let me know if the WG wishes for me to hold up all 3 documents. Thanks, Ketan
