Hi Mahesh,
That is good with me.
Regards,Reshad.
On Monday, July 14, 2025 at 05:50:39 PM EDT, Mahesh Jethanandani
<[email protected]> wrote:
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 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-secure-sequence-numbers/
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 [email protected]
