Hi Reshad, See comments inline:
> On Jul 14, 2025, at 10:53 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? There are certain state transitions that like DOWN to INIT and INIT to DOWN that do not need strong authentication. Maybe we can use the term “significant change” that we have defined in the document that lists the state transitions that need stronger authentication. > - Terminology & Section 3.1: bfd.RequiredMinTxInterval -> > bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval (I missed this in previous revs) Good catch. > - 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? Another good catch. > > 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? Will fix. > > > 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. Will fix. Thanks > > > 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]
