Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-stability-19: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Ashesh, Mahesh, Ankur, Santosh, and Mach, Thank you for the effort put into this document. Thanks also to Gyan Mishra for the OPSDIR review and to Jeff for the follow-up. Please find below some comments with a focus on the YANG part: # YANG terminology CURRENT: This YANG module imports Common YANG Types [RFC6991], A YANG Data Model for Routing [RFC8349], and YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwading Detection (BFD) [RFC9314]. This should reason about importing the various modules, not data models. Please refer to 8407bis which says: “Likewise, "YANG module" should be used when using terms related to YANG module specifications (e.g., augmentation or deviation).“ # Consistency Section 7.2 has: CURRENT: prefix "bfds"; I suggest to be consistent with the pattern used so far for BFD (bfd-ip-mh, bfd-ip-sh, bfd-lag, etc.). NEW: prefix bfd-s; # Description Consider updating the description of the module to highlight this is about experimental extensions. # Feature Description OLD: description "If supported, the feature allows for BFD sessions to be monitored for packets lost."; NEW: description "Indicates that the implementation supports monitoring of packets lost in BFD sessions."; # Modules live outside documents OLD: description "BFD Null Auth type defined in this draft."; NEW: description "BFD Null Auth type."; # Security template Please update 9.2 to follow the template in RFC8407bis. # Normative references RFC6241, RFC8040, RFC8446, 9000 should be listed as informative. Please refer to the note at https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines Cheers, Med
