Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-07
review-ietf-bfd-large-packets-07-yangdoctors-lc-schoenwaelder-2024-05-12-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-07 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | 07 (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
Deadline | 2024-06-07 | |
Requested | 2024-05-08 | |
Requested by | Reshad Rahman | |
Authors | Jeffrey Haas , Albert Fu | |
I-D last updated | 2024-05-12 | |
Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -07
by Jürgen Schönwälder
(diff)
Secdir Early review of -11 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff) |
|
Comments |
We will be doing WGLC soon. |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Jürgen Schönwälder |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/w5NaiyfytTJfv57lqzC2qvtpwsc | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2024-05-12 |
review-ietf-bfd-large-packets-07-yangdoctors-lc-schoenwaelder-2024-05-12-00
This is a fairly short document with very little YANG in it; the document defines a new YANG feature for BDF padding and a padding leaf to configure padding of BFD packets. The definition of the padded-pdu-size type may be a bit confusing: "The padded PDU size for the encapsulated BFD control packets. The minimum size is 24 or 26; see Section 6.8.6 of RFC 5880. The maximum PDU size may be limited by the supported interface MTU of the system."; I _assume_ a value of this type determines the Length field of the BDF Control packet. Perhaps define it that way and leave out "for the encapsulated BFD control packets", which may be confusing. "The padded PDU size carried in the Length field of a BDF Control packet. The minimum size is 24 or 26; see Section 6.8.6 of RFC 5880. The maximum PDU size may be limited by the supported interface MTU of the system."; Is there anything to be said about the padding data? All zeros, random bits, implementation specific? The value of Appendix A is not clear, perhaps drop it?