Hi Reshad, Thank you for a thorough review of the document and sorry for the delay in getting to these updated comments. And thanks to Ashesh for working through the comments. This is ultimately his feedback.
> On Dec 31, 2024, at 12:06 PM, Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am in the process of (re)doing the shepherd writeup for > draft-ietf-bfd-stability > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/> and reviewed > -16, here are my comments. > > > Regards, > Reshad. > > 7.2 YANG Module > > grouping lost-packet-count { > leaf lost-packet-count { > if-feature "stability"; > type yang:counter64; > description > "Number of BFD packets that were lost without bringing the > session down. This counter should be present only if > stability is configured."; > } > description > "Grouping of statistics related to BFD stability."; > } > > > - Let’s say detect multiplier is 3 (in both directions), and 5 BFD packets > were lost from R1 to R2 causing the session to go down after 3 losses. On > receiving a packet after the 5 losses, should R2 increase the counter above > by 0 or 2? Section 6.1 says, "The loss is detected by comparing the Sequence Number field in successive BFD control packets. The Sequence Number in each successive control packet generated on a BFD session by the transmitter is incremented by one.” We believe that this text should address this particular comment. No additional text is needed. > > - There’s a few mentions of “frames” in that section, it should instead refer > to BFD control packets. Ok. We will fix this. Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
