Mahesh, On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 01:54:19PM -0700, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > A place where I think the document needs to be more proscriptive is about > > *when* you use the more aggressive crypto. As I was working through the > > possible modes, it almost seems as if anything that is intended to alter the > > BFD Control packet prior to the Authentication section is a good idea. > > That is also correct. Would it help to state exactly the state transitions > that will be covered by authentication?
I think this is a requirement. > There is a question of keys that are being used for authentication and how > often they are rolled over. But that is out-of-band and was (supposed to be) > covered by KARP WG, and therefore out of scope of this draft. This required the use of the crypto extensions I-D anyway. > > What's your intention for the document? Time to ask for adoption? > > Yes, we would like a call for WG adoption of the draft. I can post an updated > draft. My suggestion will be to update the Working Group during this upcoming session in Yokohama. We can poll for adoption after that? -- Jeff
