draft-ietf-bfd-stability-10 comments

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 18 January 2024 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 641BAC151072 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 17:13:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nje-lptTk5vG for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 17:13:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5163C151070 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 17:13:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (172-125-100-52.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [172.125.100.52]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BC561E039; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:13:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\))
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:13:01 -0500
Subject: draft-ietf-bfd-stability-10 comments
Cc: rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
To: draft-ietf-bfd-stability@ietf.org
Message-Id: <DF3BB357-3F1F-466E-9324-30C46E19F4C9@pfrc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Go4sp1j7YswHjwnO6KRbphpA68M>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 01:13:05 -0000

Authors,

As we finish up work on the authentication features now that secure sequence is heading toward completion, it's time to reconcile your draft vs. our current learnings in that other work.

The main change that seems appropriate is noting that any meticulous keyed authentication mechanism will provide the necessary loss detection as desired in this draft.

This draft discusses that in the absence of any other desired mechanism, NULL auth, as documented in optimizing authentication, is appropriate.  

The text related to secure sequence numbers needs updating.  But that said, the updates are simpler because the mechanism has evolved to using sequence numbers the same as the other mechanisms, and providing its benefit in the authentication data portion of the PDU.

Could you update the draft vs. the current state of things and refresh it in the data tracker?  I suspect we'll rapidly converge on text for last call.

Thanks!

-- Jeff