Hi Reshad/Ketan, I have posted -36 version of the optimizing-auth draft to address nits found in -35 version of the draft.
With this submission, I believe we are done with all the changes we wanted to submit for both stabiliy and the optimizing-auth draft. Thanks. > On Nov 11, 2025, at 9:00 AM, Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ketan, > > BFD-stability was updated last week. I need to check for optimizing-auth but > not at home right now. > > Regards, > Reshad. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Nov 11, 2025, at 11:34 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Reshad, >> >> IIRC there was an update rev pending on the optimizing-auth draft and also >> perhaps a minor update on the stability. I might be wrong, but can Mahesh >> and Jeff check/confirm? >> >> I'll push them off to the RFC editor as a set once I get the green signal >> from the authors. >> >> Thanks, >> Ketan >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 1:44 PM Reshad Rahman <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> No concerns or objections have been expressed on the latest revisions of >>> these 3 documents. Ketan, please ship them! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Reshad. >>> >>> On Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 05:33:59 PM EDT, Mahesh Jethanandani >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Reshad. Since we made additional changes to the stability draft, I >>> have attached here the diffs that include those changes. The updated draft >>> with all these changes will be posted once the datatracker opens up for I-D >>> submission. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 30, 2025, at 8:54 AM, Reshad Rahman >>>> <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-26&url2=draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-35&difftype=--html>) >>>> - 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 >>>> <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-22&url2=draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-27&difftype=--html>) >>>> - 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 >>>> <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-bfd-stability-19&url2=draft-ietf-bfd-stability-20&difftype=--html>) >>>> - Mostly editorial/clarification changes >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Reshad. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 12:03:41 PM EDT, Jeffrey Haas >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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] >>>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Reshad >>>>> Rahman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>, >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>, >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf. org" <[email protected] <mailto:[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/ >>>>> - 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
