Re: Working Group Last Call on BFD Authentication Documents (expiresSeptember 13, 2019)

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

I support all 3 drafts as they are useful security enhancements to BFD.

Thank you 


Gyan Mishra 
IT Network Engineering & Technology 
Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor
Silver Spring, MD 20904
United States
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 15, 2019, at 10:28 PM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> 
> I support all the three drafts to be published. They're useful enhancements to base BFD protocol, short and well-written.
> 
> 
> 
> BRs,
> 
> Xiao Min
> 
> 原始邮件
> 发件人：SantoshPK <[e-mail]>
> 收件人：Ashesh Mishra <[e-mail]>;
> 抄送人：[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> 日 期 ：2019年09月13日 01:10
> 主 题 ：Re: Working Group Last Call on BFD Authentication Documents (expiresSeptember 13, 2019)
> I support all three documents. 
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:22 AM Ashesh Mishra <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> As author, I support all three drafts. 
>> 
>> On Sep 10, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Manav Bhatia <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> I support all 3 documents.
>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:45 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Working Group,
>>> 
>>> As we discussed in Montreal at IETF-105, the last hang up on progressing the
>>> authentication documents (thread copied below) was concerns on the IPR
>>> against them.
>>> 
>>> The holder of the IPR believes their discloures are consistent with prior
>>> IPR posted against the BFD suite of published RFCs.o
>>> 
>>> We are thus proceeding with the Working Group Last Call for these documents....
>>> You are encouraged to provide technical feedback for the contents of the
>>> documents, which addresses providing stronger authentication on the BFD
>>> protocol.  
>>> 
>>> Please indicate whether you believe these documents should be advanced to
>>> the IESG for publication as RFCs.
>>> 
>>> -- Jeff and Reshad
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:37:15PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>>> > Working Group,
>>> > 
>>> > A followup on this item.
>>> > 
>>> > Currently, the status is identical to that which was last posted.  Mahesh
>>> > did make contact with Ciena IPR holders regarding the state of the license.
>>> > It is their belief that their disclosure is consistent with similar IPR
>>> > filed against BFD.  Citing two similar ones:
>>> > 
>>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/516/
>>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1419/
>>> > 
>>> > It also appears to be their belief that the current wording doesn't require
>>> > that a license fee is due.  However, this is private commentary.
>>> > 
>>> > At this point, my recommendation to the working group is we decide if we'll
>>> > proceed with the publication process.  Let's use this time prior to IETF 105
>>> > to discuss any pending issues on these documents.
>>> > 
>>> > -- Jeff
>>> > 
>>> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:07:40PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>>> > > 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/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtDo
>>> > > 
>>> > > 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
>>> 
> 
>