I support all 3 drafts as they are useful security enhancements to BFD. Thank you
Gyan Mishra IT Network Engineering & Technology Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) 13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor Silver Spring, MD 20904 United States Phone: 301 502-1347 Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 15, 2019, at 10:28 PM, <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I support all the three drafts to be published. They're useful enhancements > to base BFD protocol, short and well-written. > > > > BRs, > > Xiao Min > > 原始邮件 > 发件人：SantoshPK <santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com> > 收件人：Ashesh Mishra <mishra.ash...@outlook.com>; > 抄送人：rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; > 日 期 ：2019年09月13日 01:10 > 主 题 ：Re: Working Group Last Call on BFD Authentication Documents > (expiresSeptember 13, 2019) > I support all three documents. > >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:22 AM Ashesh Mishra <mishra.ash...@outlook.com> >> wrote: >> As author, I support all three drafts. >> >> On Sep 10, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Manav Bhatia <manavbha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I support all 3 documents. >> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:45 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: >>> Working Group, >>> >>> As we discussed in Montreal at IETF-105, the last hang up on progressing the >>> authentication documents (thread copied below) was concerns on the IPR >>> against them. >>> >>> The holder of the IPR believes their discloures are consistent with prior >>> IPR posted against the BFD suite of published RFCs.o >>> >>> We are thus proceeding with the Working Group Last Call for these >>> documents.... >>> You are encouraged to provide technical feedback for the contents of the >>> documents, which addresses providing stronger authentication on the BFD >>> protocol. >>> >>> Please indicate whether you believe these documents should be advanced to >>> the IESG for publication as RFCs. >>> >>> -- Jeff and Reshad >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:37:15PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >>> > Working Group, >>> > >>> > A followup on this item. >>> > >>> > Currently, the status is identical to that which was last posted. Mahesh >>> > did make contact with Ciena IPR holders regarding the state of the >>> > license. >>> > It is their belief that their disclosure is consistent with similar IPR >>> > filed against BFD. Citing two similar ones: >>> > >>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/516/ >>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1419/ >>> > >>> > It also appears to be their belief that the current wording doesn't >>> > require >>> > that a license fee is due. However, this is private commentary. >>> > >>> > At this point, my recommendation to the working group is we decide if >>> > we'll >>> > proceed with the publication process. Let's use this time prior to IETF >>> > 105 >>> > to discuss any pending issues on these documents. >>> > >>> > -- Jeff >>> > >>> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:07:40PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >>> > > 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/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtDo >>> > > >>> > > 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 >>> > >
