Progressing BFD authentication documents

Jeffrey Haas <> Sat, 16 February 2019 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A1A130F04 for <>; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:08:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FlaqB9H8xzIT for <>; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:08:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EE9130F02 for <>; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:08:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 924871E2D8; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:07:40 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:07:40 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
Subject: Progressing BFD authentication documents
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 17:08:48 -0000

Working Group,

On March 28, 2018, we started Working Group Last Call on the following document


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

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.

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

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