Hi Reshad, IIRC there was an update rev pending on the optimizing-auth draft and also perhaps a minor update on the stability. I might be wrong, but can Mahesh and Jeff check/confirm?
I'll push them off to the RFC editor as a set once I get the green signal from the authors. Thanks, Ketan On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 1:44 PM Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: > No concerns or objections have been expressed on the latest revisions of > these 3 documents. Ketan, please ship them! > > Regards, > Reshad. > > On Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 05:33:59 PM EDT, Mahesh Jethanandani < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks, Reshad. Since we made additional changes to the stability draft, I > have attached here the diffs that include those changes. The updated draft > with all these changes will be posted once the datatracker opens up for I-D > submission. > > > > On Oct 30, 2025, at 8:54 AM, Reshad Rahman < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you Jeff. And to all authors for addressing the multiple comments > from IESG review. > > Summarizing the main changes for the WG (authors please correct me if I'm > misrepresenting/missing anything) > 1) draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication (see diffs > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-26&url2=draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-35&difftype=--html> > ) > - Major terminology change: removal of strong authentication. Instead > More/Less Computationally Intensive is used. > - Text modifications/movement to better justify the need for this work > e.g the security considerations section. > > 2) draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers (see diffs > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-22&url2=draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-27&difftype=--html> > ) > - Use of new terminology mentioned above > - Clarification for meticulous keyed (section 1.1) > - Updated rationale for use of ISAAC > - Beefed up security section > - New sub-section on "random number considerations" > > 3) draft-ietf-bfd-stability (see diffs > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-bfd-stability-19&url2=draft-ietf-bfd-stability-20&difftype=--html> > ) > - Mostly editorial/clarification changes > > Regards, > Reshad. > > > On Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 12:03:41 PM EDT, Jeffrey Haas < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > BFD Working Group, > > Reshad is temporarily unavailable so I am kicking this off in his stead. > > As our AD, Ketan, notes below, the three BFD authentication documents have > undergone substantive bits of rewrite in addressing IESG review. Please > review the updates to the drafts and state any concerns or objections you > might have to progressing the documents in their current form. > > Since the work is readily reviewable via the diff functionality in the > datatracker, let's make the end of this objection poll conclude at the > finish of IETF 124. > > If there is any concern that this review period is too short given how > busy IETF week often is, feel free to respond either to the chairs, or > Ketan, and we'll happily extend the length of this poll. That said, I'm > optimistic (and I'm not known for such) that this probably will be fine. > > Note that since I've become deeply involved in the author and editing > process of these documents over their lifetime, Reshad is the arbiter for > this poll. It was important to kick this off ASAP to provide maximum review > opportunity. > > -- Jeff > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > *Subject: **Status of 3 BFD documents in IESG Evaluation* > *Date: *October 27, 2025 at 3:51:31 AM EDT > *To: *Reshad Rehman <[email protected]>, Reshad Rahman <[email protected]>, > [email protected], > [email protected], > [email protected] > *Cc: *"rtg-bfd@ietf. org" <[email protected]> > > 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 > > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > > > > >
