Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-25: Abstain
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If there are no implementations and no plans to implement, why are we publishing this? In Section 3.1, "is fully use" doesn't parse. Given that it talks about the computation taking noticeable time, I thought this wasn't a simple typo of "is fully used" (i.e. consumed), but Section 11.1 suggests that it might be. Should this be something like "becomes active" or more explicitly "after a packet is received which falls into the current page"? Do we really wait for all values on one page to have been consumed before beginning computation of the next page when "the next page calculation is complex, and there is a long period of time available before the next page is needed"? I do appreciate the discussion in the Security Considerations of why the potential attacks are likely irrelevant, and would suggest copying similar language into draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication. ===NITS FOLLOW=== Section 3.1, "of design" => "by design"? Section 10, "Where the" => "The" Section 15.1.1, "infeasibe" => "infeasible"
