| Hi Ketan,
BFD-stability was updated last week. I need to check for optimizing-auth but not at home right now.
Regards, Reshad. Sent from my iPhone 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
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.
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) - 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) - 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) - 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:
Subject: Status of 3 BFD documents in IESG Evaluation
Date: October 27, 2025 at 3:51:31 AM EDT
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. 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
|
