Hi Jürgen,

Thank you for the review, response inline.

On 2018-02-15, 4:35 AM, "Jürgen Schönwälder" 
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:

    Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder
    Review result: Not Ready
    Review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09.txt.
    * General comments
      - Having requirements language below the abstract looks like a novel
        idea, I assume the RFC editor will edit this. Also note that
        nowadays authors are usually expected to cite RFC 8174 as well
        with the extended boilerplate text.
<RR> Will make the changes.
      - Update 2017 to 2018 in copyright statements etc.
<RR> Will make the changes.

      - References to RFC 7223, RFC 7277, RFC 8022 should be updated to
        references to the I-Ds replacing them (sitting in the RFC editor
        queue). This may also involve changes in the YANG model.
<RR> Will make the changes. I don't think this will involve changes in the YANG 
model, but will pay attention to this.
      - State whether the model is NMDA compliant (which it likely should
        be), see also previous item.
<RR> This is mentioned in section 2. I will look into moving this to the intro 
and changing the text to clarify.
      - I am not sure why you want to cite I-D.dsdt-nmda-guidelines. Would
        it not make more sense to cite the NMDA specification?
<RR> Will make the change. By NMDA specification, you're referring to 
      - There are some YANG validation errors that should be addressed (see
        the link on the datatracker).
<RR> Those were in 8022bis I believe, gone now.
      - References YANG modules must be in the references and there must
        be citations in the text, hence there is the common phrase "This
        YANG module imports <bla> [RFCwxyz] and ...."
      - We generally prefer
          reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types"
          reference "RFC 6991"
        since not everybody remembers all the RFC numbers (add the RFC
        title after the RFC number, separated by a colon). In some places
        you actually use the syntactic format but you do not use the RFC
        title. Please make this consistent, following the usual
<RR> Will make the change. 
      - I have raised a question on yang-doctors concerning the pattern
          import ietf-inet-types {
            prefix "inet";
            reference "RFC 6991";
        and whether this should perhaps be
          import ietf-inet-types {
            prefix inet;
            reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types
                       (at the time of this writing)";
 <RR> Saw the discussion, will make the change once there is closure.

    * Design of the Data Model
      - Do I always have to use schema mount to use these YANG models? If
        so, one might consider I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount a normative
        reference. Are you not augmenting the routing model?
  <RR> I will clarify in the text. There was a follow-up email discussion on 
this, we are augmenting the routing model and schema mount can be used (but not 
      - I do not understand the explanations how the groupings solve the
        problem that IGPs are moving targets (they come and go). How do
        the groupings help the operator to configure BFD parameters for
        peers they do not know about yet?
<RR> I will update the text. Basically as IGPs discover peers/neighbors, they 
create BFD sessions "internally" (i.e. via API, not via config).
      - How does a client know which choices of the "min-interval", used
        for both transmit and receive intervals, and "desired-min-tx-
        interval" and "required-min-rx-interval" are supported by an
 <RR> We'll think about this. We'll either add feature or make both mandatory.
      - The phrase 'operational model' probably means 'operational state
        model' and 'operational items' probably means 'operational state
<RR> Will make the change. 
      - You have summary information and detailed BFD session information.
        What would an implementation report if say access to some BFD
        sessions is restricted by access control? Would information about
        them still leak through the summary information? I assume so that
        this may be practically the way to do things but perhaps this
        needs to be mentioned in the security considerations.
<RR> The summary information contains everything. I don't see what kind of 
security consideration is required if we know e.g. that we have so many 
sessions up and down.
      - In 2.3, you use 'clients of BFD' but I think this is very
        different from 'BFD clients'. Please clarify the terminology.
<RR> Will use 'BFD clients' everywhere.
      - s/operational data/operational state data/g
<RR> Yes
      - The *-count leafs seem to be gauge32, should yang-types:gauge32 be
<RR> Yes
      - There are also real counters that should probably use
        yang-types:counter32 and yang-types:counter64 instead of uint32
        and uint64.
<RR> Yes
      - Is [I-D.ietf-mpls-base-yang] not a normative reference? See text
        in 2.11.3.
<RR> Yes
      - Is [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te] not a normative reference? See text in
<RR> Yes
    * IANA BFD YANG Module
      - Fix the phrase "a collection of YANG data types considered defined
        by IANA".
      - Does IANA understand how the typedefs diagnostic and auth-type is
        to be managed?  Does this relate to an existing registry? Or is
        this establishing a diagnostic registry? Should the last paragraph
        in more clearly spell out that any changes to the existing
        registry must lead to an update of the YANG module and that
        updates to the YANG module are not allowed without an update to
        the other registries? The current wording "intended to reflect"
        seems vague. Should the description text for the typedefs make an
        explicit reference to the IANA registry for these number spaces?
<RR> This is for an existing registry. I will see how to modify the text.
    * BFD types YANG Module
      - The statement "This module contains a collection of BFD specific
        YANG data type definitions" seems wrong since you define way more
        things that just datatypes. In fact, ietf-bfd-types is kind of a
        misnomer; perhaps this should be ietf-bfd-common (the -common was
        used in RFC 8194 but I am biased here).
<RR> Will rename to -common
      - s/Two interval values or 1 value/Two interval values or one value/
<RR> Yes
      - I think this is unclear (for me):
          leaf down-count {
             type uint32;
             description "Session Down Count.";
        Is this a counter counting how many times the BFD session was
        down? The terse description does not tell. If this is a counter,
        then make it clear by using yang:counter32:
          leaf down-count {
             type yang:counter32;
               "The number of times a BFD session transitioned into
                the down state.";
        Please describe clearly what is being counted. Perhaps my
        interpretation is wrong, then please insert the correct statement.
        Note that this comment also applies to several of the subsequent
<RR> Yes it is for number of times the session has gone down. I will look at 
the subsequent descriptions also and will add clarifications.
      - Clarify counter relationships. Right now, I assume that
        admin-down-count is included in down-count (but my interpretation
        may also be wrong). Same for received/send and received/send bad
<RR>  admin-down-count is not included in down-count. For packet counters, yes 
the bad packet count is included in total packet count. Will clarify.
      - You have a container session-statistics and a grouping
        session-statistics and it seems they count very different things,
        the first seems to have statistics of stuff happening within a
        session (per session statistics) and the later seems to have
        statistics across all sessions. This is a bit unfortunate, if you
        search of session statistics you find stuff that leaves you
        puzzled. Please avoid this name clash and also make sure the
        description of the leafs makes it clear whether it is a per
        session leaf or a leaf for all sessions.
<RR> Correct. I'll rename the container which is "across sessions" to summary 
or session-summary.
      - The *count leafs in "session-statistics" (ha) seem to be of
        type yang:gauge32, i.e., I would write something along these
           leaf sessions {
             type yang:gauge32;
             description "Number of BFD sessions.";
           leaf sessions-up {
             type yang:gauge32;
             description "Number of BFD sessions that are up.";
<RR> Yes the "count" in session-statistics are actually gauges and should be 
changed (and -count taken out from the name).
    * BFD IP multihop YANG Module
      - This is indented differently. Well the RFC editor will fix I
<RR> Will fix.
    * Examples
      - I have not validated the examples. I do not know whether the IETF
        tooling is meanwhile able to do this - likely not. Did the authors
        confirm that they automatically validate the examples? Well,
        looking at the namespaces, likely not (the augmentations do not
        live in the ietf-routing namespace). So these examples need to be
        validated and fixed. I have used yanglint for this, works better
        for me than the pyang solutions, but the authors should figure out
        what works for them.
<RR> I didn't verify them.. I was having issues with the verification tools. 
The examples will be verified.
      - There are special IP address blocks for examples; the IPv6 address
        you show seems to belong to APNIC...
<RR> I'll use IP addresses from the example address block.
    * Security Considerations
      - Needs to be updated to the latest boilerplate.
<RR> Ack.
      - You should discuss security properties of objects, there is more
        work to do here.
<RR> Will look into this.
    * Appendix A
      - I do not understand what is going on here, I think this needs a
        bit more explanatory text. Why is the informal description of the
        two parameters more detailed than the description in the example
        YANG module? I suggest to have a proper description in the YANG
        module only.
    <RR> Will add text. Goal was to add an example of how echo could be 

    * Appendix B
      - What is an area-id? The description is not helpful.
      - list interface [...] description "List of interfaces" is not
        really useful.
<RR> Considering removing this appendix.

Reply via email to