Hi Mahesh, Thanks for that update. I've now moved all 3 documents towards the RFC Editor.
Thanks, Ketan On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 4:52 PM Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Reshad/Ketan, > > I have posted -36 version of the optimizing-auth draft to address nits > found in -35 version of the draft. > > With this submission, I believe we are done with all the changes we wanted > to submit for both stabiliy and the optimizing-auth draft. > > Thanks. > > On Nov 11, 2025, at 9:00 AM, Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > On Nov 11, 2025, at 11:34 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > > > > >
