Hi Mahesh, You could also share the diff with the WG now and submit when the tool reopens on Sunday. Alternatively, we can do manual posting.
It is up to the authors. My preference would be the former since we already did manually post one version of this document. Thanks, Ketan On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 1:56 PM Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ketan, > > Jeff and I addressed some of the remaining comments from Deb and Gunter > for the stability draft. At this point, I believe we are done with the > changes. Let us know if you want us to do another manual post of the > stability draft or just wait till Monday to post the draft. > > Thanks. > > On Oct 27, 2025, at 9:24 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > > In the case of the BFD stability draft, the changes require posting to get > at least some of those threads to closure. If you have the update ready, I > would recommend manual posting. Then again, it is upto the authors. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 12:46 AM Mahesh Jethanandani < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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/ >> >> >> Addressed as part of this PR - >> https://github.com/mjethanandani/bfd-stability/pull/65 >> >> - Med's comments : >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/RnsdDfptWEmHWLEb9dWijYVqii4/ >> >> >> Addressed as part of this PR - >> https://github.com/mjethanandani/bfd-stability/pull/60 >> >> - 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/ >> >> >> 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/ >> >> >> Addressed as part of this PR - >> 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 >> >> >> 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/ >> >> >> 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] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > > > > >
