Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-13

; Dan > > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2024 at 1:00 AM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > Dan, > > > > On Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 12:23:02AM +0200, Dan Romascanu wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 5:59 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > > In other words, th

Re: Next steps after IETF Last Call of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

Éric, On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 03:51:51PM +, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Jeff, Albert, and BFD WG, > > The IETF Last Call of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-13 has concluded today. > Before putting the I-D on the IESG telechat for the IESG evaluation, I need > you to reply/act (read a revise

Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14: (with COMMENT)

Add what sentence? There is no concrete suggestion and Brian has failed to reply to the thread. -- Jeff > On Jan 7, 2025, at 9:04 AM, Deb Cooley via Datatracker > wrote: > -- > COMMENT: > --

Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14

Joe, > On Dec 29, 2024, at 2:13 PM, Joseph Salowey wrote: > > [Joe] Thanks for the explanation and background. I'm happy that the document > has the requirement that it does. I can see that checking this value would be > problematic for implementations, I was more thinking that the security

Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14

Joe, > On Dec 27, 2024, at 3:25 PM, Joseph Salowey wrote: > My concern is that the change to dynamic size could cause problems in the > implementation if all of the recommendations are not followed. Then the implementation would be non-conformant. When the normative procedures aren't follow

Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14

Joseph, Brian has failed to answer my reply about what I consider to be a non-issue: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/gAHzUNlTqKcefn5BSKXnbyj7Unw/ Please more clearly articulate why you think dynamic packe

Re: Protocol Action: 'Unaffiliated Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Echo' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-14.txt)

I-D nor the shepherd's write-up mention implementations, > Xiao listed some implementations in his reply to Adrian Farrel's > RTG-directorate > review at: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/3AUX1d5_2wkA6M4D66NqSsrS5M4/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/3AUX1d5_2wkA6M4D66NqSsrS5M4/> > > Personnel > >The Document Shepherd for this document is Jeffrey Haas. The Responsible >Area Director is Éric Vyncke. >

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-bfd (ends Dec/16)

Alvaro, Here is a small review comment on draft-ietf-spring-bfd. In section 6, discussing BFD Echo (not Echo BFD), the text states: "A BFD Control packet MAY be used as the payload of Echo BFD." BFD Unaffiliated Echo[1] has recently been sent to the IESG. The work in that draft covers the det

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-bfd (ends Dec/16)

Greg, On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 04:48:41PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 9:47 AM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > The first issue is the contents are left up to the implementor in RFC > > 5880. It's an easy argument to say that this draft has no business > >

Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14

Brian, > On Dec 17, 2024, at 10:56 AM, Brian Trammell via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: Brian Trammell > Review result: Ready with Issues [...] > This seems like a fairly straightforward extension to BFD that adds the > ability > to make loopback packet larger in order to check bidirec

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-bfd (ends Dec/16)

Greg, > On Dec 12, 2024, at 2:51 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 6:31 AM Jeffrey Haas <mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: > In section 6, discussing BFD Echo (not Echo BFD), the text states: > > "A BFD Control packet MAY be used as th

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-bfd (ends Dec/16)

Greg, > On Dec 12, 2024, at 7:22 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 11:55 AM Jeffrey Haas <mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: > I think additionally what is needed is to delete the other text about what is > intended to be inside such echo packet

Re: Alternate AD review of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-11

Éric, Done. -- Jeff > On Nov 13, 2024, at 6:05 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Jeff and other authors, <> > > Please submit a revised version with the below edits. I will then initiate > the IETF Last Call > > Regards > > -éric > From: Jef

Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-13

Dan, On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 01:21:33AM -0800, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker wrote: > This is a clear, well-written document. It is almost Ready with one minor > issue > (which may be just a clarification issue) and a couple of editorial nits. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > 1. Section

Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-13

Dan, On Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 12:23:02AM +0200, Dan Romascanu wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 5:59 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > In other words, the implementations know the use cases best for their > > deployments.. > > Maybe a short text would clarify. It was not obvious

Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Zahed, On Jan 8, 2025, at 7:39 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker wrote: > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Bria

Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14: (with COMMENT)

Deb, > On Jan 7, 2025, at 11:49 AM, Deb Cooley wrote: > > How about: > > The addition of dynamic size packets adds the potential for leaks in the > padding. The padding requirements in this document are the mitigation for > these issues. Whereas I don't understand what "leaks in the pad

Re: Next after the IESG evaluation of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14

Mahesh, On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:52:58AM +0530, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > On Jan 14, 2025, at 12:20 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > Two points from Mahesh linger pending his response: > > 1. I don't think we should discuss padding contents in the YANG module, and >

Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14: (with COMMENT)

Mahesh, On Sun, Jan 05, 2025 at 08:10:38AM -0800, Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker wrote: > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > Section 5.2, paragraph 21 > >leaf

Re: Next after the IESG evaluation of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14

Éric and the rest of the IESG: On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 04:39:27PM +, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > The IESG telechat of the 9th of January has reviewed [1] > draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14 and decided that a revised I-D is required. > The key issue is about the padding, both in the YANG le

Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Zahed, On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 02:05:19PM +0100, Zaheduzzaman Sarker wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 3:14 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 2025, at 7:39 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker < > > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > The specification intentionally

Re: Next after the IESG evaluation of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 10:40:32AM +0530, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2025, at 12:23 AM, John Scudder wrote: > > AFAICT from trying to unpack this conversation, yes that is your request, > > yes the IESG has approved documents with that citation style, yes Jeff > > should go ahead

Re: Next after the IESG evaluation of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14

John, On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 06:53:06PM +, John Scudder wrote: > Hi Mahesh, > > (And hoping not to tread on Éric’s toes here…) [...] > I think you mean “references the draft” not RFC. Let’s take a look at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang/ since that >

Re: Next after the IESG evaluation of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14

Éric, On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 10:29:49AM +, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Jeff, thanks for the -17, I believe (to be confirmed by Zahed and Mahesh as > Deb already approved the change in the security section) that it addresses > all remaining concerns. Excellent. > About the YANG security

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7331 (8327)

ham > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 5:11 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 01:48:57PM +, John Scudder wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > MIBs aren’t in my comfort zone and I’m having a hard time sussing this > > one out. I hop

Re: Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-23

On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 09:24:16AM -0700, Jürgen Schönwälder via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder > Review result: Has Issues > > * Abstract > > It fails to tell a reader what this document provides and leaves the > paper with a pointer to section 6.7 of RFC 5880. Interesti

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7331 (8327)

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 01:48:57PM +, John Scudder wrote: > Hi All, > > MIBs aren’t in my comfort zone and I’m having a hard time sussing this one > out. I hope one of the authors, or someone with more clue than me, will take > a look. I think there's an error here, but the fix is not cor

Re: Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-18

A brief note on "meticulous" that may be helpful as we bring these documents into harmony. On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 01:36:13PM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: > Thanks. I will address these comments, and the updated text will be > available in the next revision of the document. > > > On Apr 6, 2025,

Re: Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-bfd-stability-18

[Replying wearing my BFD chair hat] Gyan, On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 08:57:32PM -0700, Gyan Mishra via Datatracker wrote: > Document: draft-ietf-bfd-stability > Title: BFD Stability > Reviewer: Gyan Mishra > Review result: Not Ready > > Summary: > > This document describes extensions to the Bidire

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24.txt

nandani >Ashesh Mishra >Ankur Saxena > Manav Bhatia >Jeffrey Haas > Name:draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24.txt > Pages: 26 > Dates: 2025-04-16 > > Abstract: > > This document describes an optimi

Re: Secdir early review of draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-18

> On May 6, 2025, at 6:41 AM, Alan DeKok wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2025, at 1:17 PM, Rich Salz via Datatracker > wrote: > >> Sec 1: I have never heard of the term "meticulous keying" before. > > The term comes from RFC 5880, which also doesn't define it. > > I'm not sure that we want to def

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-21

Reshad, Meta-note: Yahoo does terrible things for text/plain forms of its html. It squished all bullet items onto a single line. Yuck. On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 05:31:32AM +, Reshad Rahman wrote: > Comments/questions/nits: > - There are still 2 instances of "stronger authentication" in the do

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-21

hatia Jeffrey Haas Name:draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-22.txt Pages: 25 Dates: 2025-02-24 Abstract: This document describes an optimization to BFD Authentication as described in Section 6.7 of BFD RFC 5880. The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:

Fwd: RFC 9764 on Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Encapsulated in Large Packets

Another of the WG's drafts has completed the RFC process. Thanks everyone for the work. And thank you, Albert, for driving the use case. -- Jeff > Begin forwarded message: > > From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > Subject: RFC 9764 on Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Encapsulated in > L

Re: RFC 9747 on Unaffiliated Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Echo

Congratulations to the BFD WG for successfully publishing a new RFC. -- Jeff > On Mar 26, 2025, at 8:00 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > >RFC 9747 > >Title: Unaffiliated Bidirectional Forwar

Fwd: NomCom 2025-2026 Call for Volunteers

Please consider volunteering for the nomcom. -- Jeff Forwarded Message Subject:NomCom 2025-2026 Call for Volunteers Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 08:12:09 -0700 From: NomCom Chair 2025 Reply-To: NomCom Chair 2025 To: IETF Announcement List CC: IETF Discu

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24

Ketan, In the interest of trying to move review through faster, I've partially addressed some of your comments. You can track the requested change integration here: https://github.com/bfd-wg/optimized-auth/tree/jhaas/v25-edits Meanwhile, as I note below a major bug regarding "significant chang

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-20

Ketan, A few targeted responses follow. > On May 15, 2025, at 9:48 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > > 185 4. Architecture of the Auth Type Method > > 187 When BFD uses authentication, methods using MD5 or SHA1 are CPU > 188 intensive, and can negatively impact systems with limited > 189 co

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-stability-18

Ketan, Addressing a subset of your points: > On May 15, 2025, at 7:05 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > > 150 5. NULL Auth Type > > Why is a null auth type, or even a sequence number necessary for > BFD > packet loss calculation? Is it not OK to expect that the other endpoint is > going to sen

Fwd: NomCom 2025-2026 Second Call for Volunteers

Please consider signing up for the nomcom. -- Jeff > Begin forwarded message: > > From: NomCom Chair 2025 > Subject: NomCom 2025-2026 Second Call for Volunteers > Date: June 16, 2025 at 10:31:57 AM EDT > To: "IETF Announcement List" > Cc: IETF Discussion > Reply-To: nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24

> On Jun 3, 2025, at 5:30 PM, Reshad Rahman wrote: > > I do recall that in our discussions we had to have "Updated BFD IANA" > Module only in 1 document. What I don't remember is whether we considered > moving it to draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers instead of having it in > optimizing

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24

> On Jun 4, 2025, at 9:12 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > >> On Jun 3, 2025, at 5:30 PM, Reshad Rahman > <mailto:res...@yahoo.com>> wrote: >> >> I do recall that in our discussions we had to have "Updated BFD IANA" >> Module only in

Re: AD review follow-up for YANG organization related aspects for the 3 BFD documents

Ketan, > On Jun 4, 2025, at 3:12 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > I got myself educated (a little bit) on the YANG modeling guidelines as part > of the IESG review of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/ >

Re: AD review follow-up for YANG organization related aspects for the 3 BFD documents

f an IANA registry for the protocol maintains the YANG generically. I.e., don't create this work for every person you're asking to do YANG. -- Jeff > > So, I’m supportive of Ketan’s comment below. > > Cheers, > Med > > De : Jeffrey Haas mailto:jh...@pfrc.org

Re: AD review follow-up for YANG organization related aspects for the 3 BFD documents

Ketan, > On Jun 4, 2025, at 11:05 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > > Allow me to step in to ensure that Med and Jeff are talking about the same > thing. > > Med is talking only about the IANA maintained module for ietf-bfd-types. As am I. > > Jeff (I guess?) is talking about the BFD YANG modul

Re: AD Evaluation Review of draft-ietf-bfd-stability-18

Mahesh, > On Jun 6, 2025, at 4:07 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: >> >> 239 Implementations MAY provide mechanisms wherein all expected packets >> 240 received across an expected interval but delivered out of order are >> 241 not considered lost packets. >> >> Why is this not a MUST?

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-22.txt

s Keyed ISAAC for BFD Optimized Authentication > Authors: Alan DeKok >Mahesh Jethanandani >Sonal Agarwal > Ashesh Mishra >Jeffrey Haas > Name:draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-22.txt > Pages: 32 > Dates: 2

Re: Please review the 3 updated BFD auth documents

On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 03:14:41PM +0200, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > 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 ar

Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-09

Jeffrey Haas has requested publication of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-09 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the BFD working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/

Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis-01

Jeffrey Haas has requested publication of draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis-01 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the BFD working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis/

Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-10

Jeffrey Haas has requested publication of draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-10 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the BFD working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo/

<    1   2   3   4   5   6