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/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/NojkOgcMgmG63jwwOZDVs6F3jCA/> > - Med's comments : > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/RnsdDfptWEmHWLEb9dWijYVqii4/ > <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/ > <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/ > <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/ > <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 > > <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/ > <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 >
