Re: Progressing BFD authentication documents

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Tue, 19 February 2019 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85824130FA8 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:40:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30-MGG8MLRre for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:40:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34DC7130FA5 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:40:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id p8so11063311plo.2 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:40:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=njQYlEAaCIzu32GJyls4QigFtsPmLewE8a50/vcBom8=; b=IthzMEYgMKmG9nFyWbiVIerD5rXSCJ7gz+0jdS0eLdCXPY178uwauhLFao34wPafuf v71ILMw3hzEbKxUYWqE4gyIQabwHUwpZNQB352vpHR5CKz9/wFcEF97mGErwOAWXvM5V ZLOK+CEYo37SNb7h+ZX8G0FmSS0Tt8PU3EPj820B9nj1oahpdt6ublwSF7lU/97UX+cV fnEVSFDkbydhCIOGcZ9XbOgpCAhNSWZeA0gDRkt09HPXtCyUlScA7qMdCh62jRrH/eOR R4+4tpOxSOSpTB0JFHk2ogCvNjm1z9YjGSmI852L9F5uia8mEX1Q+6a3T+0lhqYhBFkk 9CvA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=njQYlEAaCIzu32GJyls4QigFtsPmLewE8a50/vcBom8=; b=N2Nb2LhgMYVRG7u4QMSM3JhrNqHF+4CeMyjUo/G8pTHYN4+CH6H8R9xiEoaZ2cfKSr T26sE+Rrb5p/JI2gzxV3FV3PscklCBrDYazMAdwjshIOpHjZEUekMtvdmAbDvjm8tKt0 FOQc5kGuQwxB034Eyg7JdhMIj8J+Hv7+08ee2MlI+I3uPgvPcGJCSLBR2cQ4BHpSvNwZ vhCusVwjPCXBP4uOU72+x2H6YzMCDSAwwGNsy50Q+vP9mKVZBFYokausJZHo2y4xsetM H2MzopSspPcccRnX9Yg7D0DR5KSzOj82M2GVKJEv+wuLjt2uQ/AH17mIn3KSd8LU/nUl nCXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYTUZhUTW4RzJ2m0qG8xBofa/0HImThy8okrnc4qf/rUWyrnPhB /UmEN7T4smgMv5v4xspzas0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY+hGfDUYxaWvdcilUJNSMwfUS7M0cXT3FIj3WB+P/Va0yk1aQNWp6+eXoUoIXqxphGRd1C/A==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:34a:: with SMTP id 68mr33591092pld.268.1550612401598; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.5.5.171] ([47.88.78.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e63sm20800922pfb.25.2019.02.19.13.39.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:40:00 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Subject: Re: Progressing BFD authentication documents
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <025701d4c839$0b3fab00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 05:39:54 +0800
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <8C156D80-7B7C-4BCE-B550-8684185CC064@gmail.com>
References: <20190216170740.GA31558@pfrc.org> <025701d4c839$0b3fab00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/6rO7CGhGy2Ko1Y92ypbnbb-4EK0>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:40:04 -0000

Hi Tom,

We are in the process of refreshing all the drafts that have expired.

Cheers.

> On Feb 19, 2019, at 5:55 PM, tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:
> 
> Jeff
> 
> Two of the three I-D you mention have timed out and are not available
> through the usual channels.
> 
> I suggest that the first step needs to be a refresh so that they are
> available.
> 
> (Yes, I know I can jump through hoops and find obsoleted I-Ds but life
> is too short:-)
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>
> To: <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 5:07 PM
>> Working Group,
>> 
>> On March 28, 2018, we started Working Group Last Call on the following
> document
>> bundle:
>> 
>>  draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers
>>  draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication
>>  draft-ietf-bfd-stability
>> 
>> The same day, Mahesh Jethanandani acknowledged there was pending IPR
>> declarations against these drafts.  An IPR declaration was finally
> posted on
>> November 1, 2018.  In particular, it notes a patent.  The licenseing
> is
>> RAND.
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3328/
>> 
>> In the time since the WGLC was requested, there were a number of
> technical
>> comments made on these drafts.  It's my belief that all substantial
>> technical comments had been addressed in the last posted version of
> these
>> documents.  Note that there was one lingering comment about Yang
>> considerations for the BFD module with regard to enabling this
> optimized
>> authentication mode which can be dealt with separably.
>> 
>> The chairs did not carry out a further consensus call to ensure that
> there
>> are no further outstanding technical issues.
>> 
>> On November 21, Greg Mirsky indicated an objection to progressing the
>> document due to late disclosure.
>> 
>> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtD
> o
>> 
>> Since we are a little over a month prior to the upcoming IETF 104,
> this
>> seems a good time to try to decide how the Working Group shall finish
> this
>> work.  Since we are meeting in Prague, this may progress to microphone
>> conversation.
>> 
>> For the moment, the chairs' perceived status of the documents are:
>> - No pending technical issues with the documents with one known issue.
>> - Concerns over late disclosure of IPR.
>> - No solid consensus from the Working Group that we're ready to
> proceed.
>>  This part may be covered by a future consensus call, but let's hear
> list
>>  discussion first.
>> 
>> -- Jeff
>> 
> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com