Thank you Jeff. And to all authors for addressing the multiple comments from
IESG review.
Summarizing the main changes for the WG (authors please correct me if I'm
misrepresenting/missing anything)1) draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication
(see diffs) - Major terminology change: removal of strong authentication.
Instead More/Less Computationally Intensive is used. - Text
modifications/movement to better justify the need for this work e.g the
security considerations section.
2) draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers (see diffs) - Use of new terminology
mentioned above - Clarification for meticulous keyed (section 1.1) - Updated
rationale for use of ISAAC - Beefed up security section - New sub-section on
"random number considerations"
3) draft-ietf-bfd-stability (see diffs) - Mostly editorial/clarification
changes
Regards,Reshad.
On Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 12:03:41 PM EDT, Jeffrey Haas
<[email protected]> wrote:
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-authenticationa) 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-numbersa) 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-stabilitya) 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/
- Med's comments :
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/
- Gorry's comments:
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/
- Deb's comments (look at the ballot) :
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/
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
