YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis-04
Yes
John Scudder
(Alvaro Retana)
(Andrew Alston)
No Objection
Erik Kline
Murray Kucherawy
Roman Danyliw
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
John Scudder
Yes
Paul Wouters
Yes
Comment
(2022-04-06 for -02)
Sent
Erik Kline
No Objection
Francesca Palombini
(was Discuss)
No Objection
Comment
(2022-04-07)
Sent for earlier
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
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2022-04-06)
Sent
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)
Sent for earlier
Thanks for fixing the reference.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2022-04-04 for -02)
Not sent
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
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Not sent
Andrew Alston Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2022-04-05 for -02)
Sent
Thanks for fixing this. Regards, Rob
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2022-04-05 for -02)
Sent
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"not binding", "inoperative", "illegitimate", "incorrect", "improper", "unacceptable", "inapplicable", "revoked", "rescinded".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".