Review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-26
=======================================================================================
Authors have addressed AD-review comments @
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/xbqjw2vFztDesC6DKyIsRczcgIs/
Shepherding co-chair then asked for comments on the updates, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/dvdro7nBOEu8WKr2Y0VKOz7jZCA/
Comments provided @
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/aeaBX7ZFDlupcxpjydgRttHaCtE/ have
been addressed.
Comment on -26: there is 1 instance of "important BFD state transitions" left
in the Introduction section. All other instances of "important state
transitions" are gone and that remaining instance should be removed too.
Review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24
=======================================================================================
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
Strong consensus of a few individuals.
The initial revision of this document is from 2015. Since then there have been
multiple discussions on the BFD alias and in in-person WG meetings. The
"recent" changes to the document to use ISAAC are the ones on which the WG has
been mostly silent.
There has been opposition by one person (see 2 below).
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There has been controversy because of the IPR Disclosure. Concern is FRAND
licensing terms.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/05jWvSvZioDvOlZfNAZKGMOw5ng/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtDo/
However the authors have expressed that since the patent has been filed, the
document has diverged from what was filed:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/LFI1DvUHBUFBjz5Yxgvs4u6_2XU/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/KpT0VQoLiExRzvzYe1DwL9JkJ4U/
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
No implementations and no known plans to implement.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
No and no.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document has undergone a YANG Doctor review.
The authors have addressed all the comments.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation?
Yes.
If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time?
No errors and no warnings.
Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?
Yes.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
YANG has been validated.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
The document is clearly written and nearly ready.
The authors have addressed all review comments.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/ca_gCMOCyXGNhhTBAvg5lGLXJK8/
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
There has been a secdir review and comments have been addressed:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/303D-DZ2DVFr9frgy75b6yyiILk/
No comments from RtgDir review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/El6oDoBT6r40I9IWC-YdJNEiPPM/
Comments from opsdir review have been addressed:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/xJiWAeDtJFSdwUSpOnztZjgXwZw/
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])?
Experimental as indicated on title page.
Why is this the proper type
of RFC?
This document describes an experimental update to BFD [RFC5880].
This experiment is intended to provide additional insights into what
happens when the optimized authentication method defined in this
document is used. Here are the reasons why this document is on the
Experimental track:
* In the initial stages of the document, there were significant
participation and reviews from the working group. Since then,
there has been considerable changes to the document, e.g. the use
of ISAAC, allowing for ISAAC bootstrapping when a BFD session
comes up and use of a single Auth Type to indicate use of
optimized authentication etc. These changes did not get
significant review from the working group and therefore does not
meet the bar set in Section 4.1.1 of [RFC2026]
* There are no known implementations (even proof-of-concept) or
implementation plans. As a result, we do not currently know if
there will be interop issues with legacy implementations or what
exactly are the performance benefits of the optimization method.
* The work in this document could become very valuable in the
future, especially if the need for deploying BFD authentication at
scale becomes a reality.
Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Yes.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]?
Yes.
To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/tB3E6nl6N4w7wGIPMXsDF2gDdiE/
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such?
Yes.
If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
N/A.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
(The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
ID-Checklist requires).
-- The document date (16 April 2025) is 18 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
N/A
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
No.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No. Note that this document should be in the same bundle as
draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers and draft-ietf-bfd-stability (which are
updated in "locked-step" with this document).
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No. This is an experimental document.
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
Section 6 matches the rest of the document and confirming the above where
applicable.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
Assignment from the “BFD Authentication Types” registry requires Expert review.
Checked https://www.iana.org/assignments/bfd-parameters/bfd-parameters.xhtml
There is also an updated IANA YANG module in the appendix.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/