Hi Reshad, If it is ok with you, for the secure-sequence-number and stability draft that have nits only, I will address them when more substantive comments are received or when it gets to IESG review (where I do expect more comments will be provided).
Thanks > On Jul 14, 2025, at 1:53 PM, Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: > > BFD Auth authors, BFD WG, Ketan, > > Thanks to the authors for addressing the comments which came from AD-review. > I have gone through all 3 documents, concentrating on the changes made since > WGLC completed, and the documents are all aligned with each other. > > Here are some comments/questions (and a few small nits I noticed). > > draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication > > Comments/questions: > - Intro: "whereby only important BFD state transitions require strong > authentication" (this seems to be new text). I thought all state transitions > required strong authentication? > - Terminology & Section 3.1: bfd.RequiredMinTxInterval -> > bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval (I missed this in previous revs) > - Section 3.1: "that do not require a poll sequence". Per > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5880#section-6.8.3 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5880#section-6.8.3> 2nd paragraph, > the examples given do require a poll sequence? > > Nits: > - Intro: "to authenticate BFD every packet" -> "to authenticate every BFD > packet" > - Section 3: "For example, MD5 and SHA1. (Section 6.7 of [RFC5880])" -> "For > example, MD5 and SHA1 (Section 6.7 of [RFC5880])." > - Section 3: in the last paragraph should the trailing ":" be a "."? Or is > the ":" on purpose? > - Section 7.1: "if the Auth Len field is not equal to a value appropriate for > the" twice? > > > draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers > > No comments. > > Nits: > - Introduction: "This specification therefore define" -> "This specification > therefore defines" > - Section 2: "and then define a" -> "and then defines a" > - Section 3: "and is therefore is not suitable" -> "and is therefore not > suitable" > - Section 4.1 1st paragraph: "and the Opt. Mode field contains 2" -> "and the > Optimized Authentication Mode field contains 2 (optimized)" > - Repeat comment above for 1st paragraph of sections 4.2 and 4.3. > > > draft-ietf-bfd-stability > > No comments or nits. > > Regards, > Reshad. > > On Friday, July 11, 2025 at 01:41:55 PM EDT, Reshad Rahman > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > BFD WG, > > The authors have updated the 3 documents based on AD feed-back from Ketan. > Please provide any comments/feedback/approval/objections on the updated > documents by July 18th. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication/> > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers/> > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/> > > > > > > Regards, > Reshad. > > > On Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 03:13:47 PM EDT, Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The WGLC has concluded and the shepherd write ups have been updated. The > documents have been pushed to the next phase. > > It’s not over yet but thanks to everyone who has helped to get the documents > past this milestone. It’s been a loooong journey and there’s more work to be > done to get to the finish line. > > Regards, > Reshad. Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
