Here are my comments for draft-ietf-bfd-stability.
Regarding the thread with Christian for the SecDir review, I wouldn't want a
ban on NULL auth but we should consider his suggestion of using it in certain
environments only.
Section 7 (YANG module)
- In RFC9314, all packet counts for session statistics are counter64. Change
lost-packet-count to also use counter64?
- The "stability" read-write leaf node is conditional on the feature
"stability" but the read-only lost-packet-count node is not conditional on that
feature despite the description saying "the counter should be present only if
stability is configured" (nit: should that be "... if stability is enabled"?).
So lost-packet-count by transitivity can only be present if stability feature
is enabled, but might be good to have an explicit if-feature?
Section 9.1
- Worth mentioning, as already stated in 6.2, that OOO packets can
incorrectly be represented as lost packets?
- Nit: "a read-only variables" -> "read-only nodes"?
Regards,Reshad.
On Monday, June 3, 2024, 09:30:18 PM EDT, Reshad Rahman
<reshad=40yahoo....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
BFD WG,
This email starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for the following 3
documents, please review and provide comments by end of day on June
17th.Feedback such as "I believe the document is ready to advance" is also
welcome.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/
Those documents were discussed extensively a few years ago but there have been
a few changes since (e.g. use of ISAAC).
IPR check was done a few years ago but it's been a while and there has been
significant changes in the documents since then:1- Authors, please respond
whether you are aware of any undisclosed IPR.2- Mahesh, Ankur and Ashesh, is
this IPR still relevant/applicable to draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication?
Regards,Reshad.
