[auth48] Re: RFC-to-be 9986 draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers for your review

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Madison,

Sonal did respond with an approval and asked for her contact information to be updated. Did you see it?

Thanks

p.s. Let me ping Ashesh.

> On Jun 4, 2026, at 9:19 AM, Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mahesh,
> 
> Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval here: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9986/.
> 
> Once we receive approvals from Ashesh and Sonal, we will move this document forward in the publication process.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Madison Church
> RFC Production Center
> 
>> On Jun 3, 2026, at 7:07 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Madison,
>> 
>> I am not sure if I sent my approval already, but here it is, in case I missed sending it
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>>> On Jun 2, 2026, at 12:00 PM, Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Alan, *Ketan,
>>> 
>>> *Ketan - We have noted your approval for moving RFC 8341 to the Normative References section.
>>> 
>>> Alan - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document per your response and noted your approval on the Final Review (formerly AUTH48) status page; see https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9986/.
>>> 
>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986.txt
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986.pdf
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986.xml
>>> 
>>> Updated diff files have been posted here:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986-diff.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986-auth48diff.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>> 
>>> Once we receive approval from Mahesh, Sonal, and Ashesh, we will move this document forward in the publication process.
>>> 
>>> Thank you!
>>> 
>>> Madison Church
>>> RFC Production Center
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 2, 2026, at 11:27 AM, Alan DeKok <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On May 29, 2026, at 4:47 PM, Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] For the "[ISAAC_]" reference, we recommend changing the citation
>>>>>>> tag since "[ISAAC]" and "[ISAAC_]" may be easily confused. May we update
>>>>>>> "[ISAAC_]" to "[ISAAC+]" or "[ISAAC-Plus]"?
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> This question to be answered by Alan and the SEC-ADs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [rfced] We will wait for further guidance from Alan before proceeding with any updates for the "[ISAAC_]" reference.
>>>> 
>>>> This should be "[ISAAC-Plus]" for clarity.
>>>> 
>>>>> [rfced] After further review, we have decided to use "sequence number" and "secret key" in this document for consistency across RFC 5880 and RFC-to-be 9985 (this excludes instances where the terms are paired with another noun, e.g., "Sequence Number field"). Please let us know any objections.
>>>> 
>>>> This is fine.
>>>> 
>>>>>>> Meticulous Keyed ISAAC
>>>>>>> Meticulous keyed ISAAC
>>>>>> The forms I see these in are paired to the sha-1 and md-5 forms of the mode.  We are looking for consistency for those pairings.  The capitalization for keyed can match the other instances.
>>>>>>> Meticulous Keyed ISAAC Keyed 
>>>>>>> [Note: Is the second "Keyed" correct here? There are 4 instances.]
>>>>>> These instances look like a search and replace issue.  I believe the intention here is that each of these instances is intended to be "Meticulous Keyed ISAAC, ISAAC format".  This should be audited by Alan.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [rfced] We will wait for further guidance from Alan before making the updates as described above for "Meticulous Keyed ISAAC Keyed". We have updated all other terms for consistency.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes.  The 4 instances can be changed to "Meticulous Keyed ISAAC, ISAAC format".
>>>> 
>>>> Alan DeKok.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> [e-mail]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]