Jeff Two of the three I-D you mention have timed out and are not available through the usual channels.
I suggest that the first step needs to be a refresh so that they are available. (Yes, I know I can jump through hoops and find obsoleted I-Ds but life is too short:-) Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Haas" <jh...@pfrc.org> To: <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 5:07 PM > Working Group, > > On March 28, 2018, we started Working Group Last Call on the following document > bundle: > > draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers > draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication > draft-ietf-bfd-stability > > The same day, Mahesh Jethanandani acknowledged there was pending IPR > declarations against these drafts. An IPR declaration was finally posted on > November 1, 2018. In particular, it notes a patent. The licenseing is > RAND. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3328/ > > In the time since the WGLC was requested, there were a number of technical > comments made on these drafts. It's my belief that all substantial > technical comments had been addressed in the last posted version of these > documents. Note that there was one lingering comment about Yang > considerations for the BFD module with regard to enabling this optimized > authentication mode which can be dealt with separably. > > The chairs did not carry out a further consensus call to ensure that there > are no further outstanding technical issues. > > On November 21, Greg Mirsky indicated an objection to progressing the > document due to late disclosure. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtD o > > Since we are a little over a month prior to the upcoming IETF 104, this > seems a good time to try to decide how the Working Group shall finish this > work. Since we are meeting in Prague, this may progress to microphone > conversation. > > For the moment, the chairs' perceived status of the documents are: > - No pending technical issues with the documents with one known issue. > - Concerns over late disclosure of IPR. > - No solid consensus from the Working Group that we're ready to proceed. > This part may be covered by a future consensus call, but let's hear list > discussion first. > > -- Jeff >
