Responding to this specific question: The shepherd report states that there
are "no implementations and no knownplans to implement." Why publish this
document if there no plans to run the
experiment?
We had a discussion on this about a year ago with the RTG ADs. We decided it
was beneficial to (try to) publish the documents since this work could be very
useful in the future, e.g. after a hypothetical attack on an unauthenticated
BFD session which could lead to many operators requesting better
scale/performance for BFD authentication.
Regards,Reshad.
On Wednesday, September 17, 2025 at 05:43:25 PM EDT, Roman Danyliw via
Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
Roman Danyliw 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The shepherd report states that there are "no implementations and no known
plans to implement." Why publish this document if there no plans to run the
experiment?
====
I support the DISCUSS position of Deb Cooley.
Thank you to Mallory Knodel for the GENART review.
** idnits reports:
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
