Hi Jeff, Ketan,
Inline.
On Friday, May 16, 2025 at 08:44:03 PM EDT, Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org>
wrote:
Ketan,
In the interest of trying to move review through faster, I've partially
addressed some of your comments. You can track the requested change
integration here:
https://github.com/bfd-wg/optimized-auth/tree/jhaas/v25-edits
Meanwhile, as I note below a major bug regarding "significant changes" has
crept in, and recovering that from commit history will happen later. The
answers to your comments will hopefully let subsets of this AD review move
forward.
-- Jeff
> On May 15, 2025, at 8:24 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> General Comment/Suggestion:
> This is about the contents of this document and its relationship with
> draft-ietf-bfd-stability and draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers. I
> believe this document does not depend on those other two, at least not
> normatively as indicated today. This proposal is self sufficient in that it
> defines the optimized authentication framework without defining any of the
> optimized auth types - this is perfectly OK. As such, for smooth progression
> of this work, I would strongly recommend moving all text related to the
> ISAAC-based auth types from this document into
> draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers. I am sure there is a solution to
> avoid reference to the draft-ietf-bfd-stability which is currently used only
> for the updated YANG model. This way, this document becomes independent of
> the other two for its further processing.
We expected a portion of this commentary when we sent the documents along. The
non-obvious thing is the impacts of YANG module versioning and maintenance
rules on these documents.
Tersely, while we're largely in agreement about the separation of technology,
the need to update the BFD IANA module can't be done severably between each of
the documents at this time. You have the ops AD on the document who previously
chaired one of the main YANG related working groups. I suspect you might be
willing to believe us on the matter, but this intricacy and its impacts on how
IETF maintains its modules is worth broader IESG discussion.
Spend some time digesting this detail and come back with what you think the
better options are. At the moment, you have the collective authors' results of
how we think this was best to do at this time.
<RR> I do recall that in our discussions we had to have "Updated BFD IANA"
Module only in 1 document. What I don't remember is whether we considered
moving it to draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers instead of having it in
optimizing-authentication. But draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers would
still depend on bfd-stability since we're moving the documents together.
Regards,Reshad.
