Hi Ketan, See inline.
> On Oct 27, 2025, at 2:51 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. In general, the bulk of the comments have been addressed in email responses and in GitHub PRs. Will post once the datatracker opens. > Authors need to take actions for the following threads: > - Eric V's comments : > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/NojkOgcMgmG63jwwOZDVs6F3jCA/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/NojkOgcMgmG63jwwOZDVs6F3jCA/> Addressed as part of this PR - https://github.com/mjethanandani/bfd-stability/pull/65 <https://github.com/mjethanandani/bfd-stability/pull/65> > - Med's comments : > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/RnsdDfptWEmHWLEb9dWijYVqii4/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/RnsdDfptWEmHWLEb9dWijYVqii4/> Addressed as part of this PR - https://github.com/mjethanandani/bfd-stability/pull/60 <https://github.com/mjethanandani/bfd-stability/pull/60> > - Gunter's comments : > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Af-fvNF0oJ_w-kvbDfL_yaJyTGE/ > <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/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/-VyzPmoV65rCDZAFnDgk9sXJChw/> Gunter and Gorry’s comments might have been addressed by some of the other PRs, but I will take a look to make sure. > - Mirja's comments from TSVART review: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/JsqoFqNdmH-OwU_anOB0mgrXaBU/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/JsqoFqNdmH-OwU_anOB0mgrXaBU/> Addressed as part of this PR - https://github.com/mjethanandani/bfd-stability/pull/66 <https://github.com/mjethanandani/bfd-stability/pull/66> > - Deb's comments (look at the ballot) : > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/ballot/#draft-ietf-bfd-stability_deb-cooley > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/ballot/#draft-ietf-bfd-stability_deb-cooley> For Deb, Jeff and I have tried to get some clarifications in place. I think we will have to resolve this in a F2F meeting in 124. > - Les's comments from IANA DE review : > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/PGNSrFq8st7SkeH1gqKaHHXUClg/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/PGNSrFq8st7SkeH1gqKaHHXUClg/> Les’ comments on the non-DE portion of the document are something Jeff and I disagree with. They are also in his own words non-blocking. We will close the loop on it. Thanks. > 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 > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
