Thanks to Dan H. for the SECDIR review.

Thanks for the draft and the work goes into it and the adaptation to inclusive language as part of the update.

Please read and consider the language update from SECDIR review - it makes the security considerations stronger.

Thanks to Dan Harkins for their secdir review.

Thanks for the work done in this document. Nevertheless, please find below some non-blocking COMMENTS.

### Abstract

s/This document describes/This document *specifies*/ as it is a PS.

### Section 1

s/This document introduces/This document *defines*/

### Section 4

s/A packet has been received with IP TTL (Time-To-Live)/A packet has been received with IP TTL (Time-To-Live) or Hop-Limit/

`leaf ip-ttl-errors` has the correct wording.

### Appendix A

Thanks for the IPv6 example :-)

(1) Section 2.4 / Section 3 tree diagrams vs. YANG module:
    active-transitions counter type inconsistency

Section 2.4, Figure 3 (IPv4 augment):

373 >                +--ro active-transitions?        yang:counter32

Section 2.4, Figure 3 (IPv6 augment):

416 >                +--ro active-transitions?        yang:counter32

Section 3, Figure 5 (IPv4 augment):

553 >                +--ro active-transitions?        yang:counter32

Section 3, Figure 5 (IPv6 augment):

601 >                +--ro active-transitions?        yang:counter32

The YANG module itself defines the type as yang:counter64:

1445 >         leaf active-transitions {
1446 >           type yang:counter64;

Section 6.1 states explicitly:

1779 >    Additionally, the type of the "active-transitions" counter has been
1780 >    updated from 32 bits to 64 bits consistent with other VRRP counters.

All four tree diagram occurrences still show yang:counter32, which
contradicts both the YANG module and the prose in Section 6.1.  The tree
diagrams need to be regenerated to reflect this update.

(2) Section 4, vrrp-state-attributes grouping, skew-time units:

1400 >       leaf skew-time {
1401 >         type uint32;
1402 >         units "microseconds";
1403 >         config false;
1404 >         description
1405 >           "Calculated based on the priority and advertisement
1406 >            interval configuration command parameters. Note that
1407 >            the units are microseconds rather than centiseconds units
1408 >            as configured for advertisement-interval.";
1409 >         reference
1410 >           "RFC 9568: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
1411 >            Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6, Section 6.1";

RFC 9568 Section 6.1 defines Skew_Time as:

 > "Time to skew Active_Down_Interval in centiseconds. Calculated as:
 > (((256 - Priority) * Active_Adver_Interval) / 256)"

Both Skew_Time and Active_Down_Interval are defined in centiseconds in
RFC 9568.  The companion leaf active-down-interval correctly declares
units "centiseconds" (line 1391), but skew-time declares units
"microseconds."  The description acknowledges the difference but does
not provide a protocol-level justification for deviating from the
normative reference.  This discrepancy was noted by both the OPSDIR
(Dunbar, -18) and GEN-ART (Robles, -15) reviewers and does not appear
to have been resolved in -20.  The authors should either:

  (a) change the units to centiseconds to match RFC 9568, or

  (b) provide a clear explanation of why microseconds are used and how
      they relate to the RFC 9568 computation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

(These two nits were also noted by the OPSDIR reviewer, Linda Dunbar, thanks Linda,
in her review of -18.)

Section 4, vrrp-state-attributes grouping, effective-priority description:

1373 >            The priority 255 is reserved the virtual router owning
1374 >            the address.";

s/reserved the/reserved for the/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1.1, Changes from RFC 8347, last bullet:

128 >    *  The descriptive text for identify "vrrp-event-owner-preempt" was
129 >       updated.

s/for identify/for identity/

Thank you to Linda Dunbar for the GENART review.