> On Sep 3, 2025, at 10:19 AM, Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-24: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi Alan DeKok, Mahesh, Sonal, Ashesh, and Jeff,
>
> Thanks also to Yingzhen Qu for an OPSDIR review of an early version and to the
> authors for the follow-up.
>
> # DISCUSS
>
> I don’t understand the need for the YANG module as these identities are also
> defined in draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication.
>
> Any reason why this is defined?
That was also the main issue in my YANG doctor review.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-24-yangdoctors-lc-lindem-2025-08-30/
If there is not going to be a separate feature for Meticulously Key ISACC then
perhaps shouldn't be a separate YANG augmentation and ietf-bfd-opt-auth.yang
could just have a normative reference to this draft.
Thanks,
Acee
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>
>
>
>
