YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis-04
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
Alvaro Retana Yes
Andrew Alston Yes
John Scudder Yes
Paul Wouters Yes
Robert Wilton Yes
Thanks for fixing this. Regards, Rob
Erik Kline No Objection
Francesca Palombini (was Discuss) No Objection
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
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"not binding", "inoperative", "illegitimate", "incorrect", "improper", "unacceptable", "inapplicable", "revoked", "rescinded".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
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
Thanks for fixing the reference.
Éric Vyncke No Objection
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