Skip to main content

YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis-04

Yes

Alvaro Retana
Andrew Alston
John Scudder

No Objection

Erik Kline
Murray Kucherawy
Roman Danyliw

No Record

Martin Duke

Summary: Has enough positions to pass.

Alvaro Retana Yes

Andrew Alston Yes

John Scudder Yes

Paul Wouters Yes

Comment (2022-04-06 for -02)
Thanks to the Yang Doctors for provided background information with informative links to the discussion.

Changes look good. Others have already pointed out that RFC8177 and RFC9127 need to be added to the normative references.

Robert Wilton Yes

Comment (2022-04-05 for -02)
Thanks for fixing this.

Regards,
Rob

Erik Kline No Objection

Francesca Palombini (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2022-04-07)
Thank you for the work on this document, and for addressing my previous DISCUSS. One minor comment left.

Francesca

        This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9127; see the
        RFC itself for full legal notices.";

FP: One last occurrence of this text left in Appendix A.1

Lars Eggert No Objection

Comment (2022-04-05 for -02)
Document updates RFC9127, but does not cite it as a reference.

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term "invalid"; alternatives might be "not valid", "unenforceable", "not
   binding", "inoperative", "illegitimate", "incorrect", "improper",
   "unacceptable", "inapplicable", "revoked", "rescinded".

Thanks to Joel Halpern for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/2_6QYcQc4Tflyh0-cr6_e9Gc43s).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in
the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD
License".

Murray Kucherawy No Objection

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2022-04-06)
Thank you for this document.

I'd also like to thank Jeffrey Haas for the well written and comprehensive Document Shepherd writeup -- it answered questions that I would otherwise have asked in the ballot.

Zaheduzzaman Sarker (was Discuss, No Record, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2022-04-07)
Thanks for fixing the reference.

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2022-04-04 for -02)
Just a minor nit in section 2.11 as I am unsure whether "This revision is non-backwards compatible" reads well with the "-", I would suggest to use "This revision is not backwards compatible".

-éric

Martin Duke No Record