Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-18
review-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-18-yangdoctors-early-ma-2024-08-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-16
Requested revision 16 (document currently at 21)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2024-08-07
Requested 2024-06-05
Requested by Reshad Rahman
Authors Mahesh Jethanandani , Ashesh Mishra , Ankur Saxena , Manav Bhatia , Jeffrey Haas
I-D last updated 2024-08-01
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -18 by Qiufang Ma (diff)
Secdir Early review of -16 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Qiufang Ma
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication by YANG Doctors Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/bgS6uOw5w_YYhGxvbqt7D9WCO2U
Reviewed revision 18 (document currently at 21)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-08-01
review-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-18-yangdoctors-early-ma-2024-08-01-00
Hi, this is my YANG Doctor review of draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication,
the requested revision is 16, but it is currently at version 18, so my review
is based on the latest.

This draft defines a YANG module which augments the base BFD YANG model in RFC
9314, and also has an IANA-maintained module in Appendix which updates the
initial one in RFC 9127. Both YANG modules have been parsed by yanglint and
pyang, which didn’t generate any warnings and errors.

Some nits that need to be fixed:
1.      Sec.5.1 states “Finally, it adds a flag to enable optimized
authentication, an interval value that specifies how often the BFD session
should be re-authenticated once it is in the Up state, and the key chain that
should be used in the Up state.” But I think the YANG module only defines the
reauth-interval, which is inconsistent with the narrative description.

2.      The YANG module in sec.5.3 imports a set of modules from RFC 9314, but
the reference statement to RFC 9314 should be: OLD:
    reference
      "RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
       Forwarding Detection.";
NEW:
    reference
      "RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
       Forwarding Detection (BFD)”;

3.      The YANG module in sec.5.3, reference statement to RFC 8177 should be:
OLD:
    reference
      "RFC 8177: YANG Key Chain.";
NEW:
    reference
      " RFC 8177: YANG Data Model for Key Chains";

4.      The YANG module in sec.5.3, please update the reference for identity
definitions optimized-md5-meticulous-keyed-isaac and
optimized-sha1-meticulous-keyed-isaac as follows: OLD:
    reference
      "I-D.ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication:
         Meticulous Keyed ISAAC for BFD Authentication.
       I-D.ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers:
         Meticulous Keyed ISAAC for BFD Authentication.";
NEW:
     reference
        "RFC XXXX: Optimizing BFD Authentication
         RFC YYYY: Meticulous Keyed ISAAC for BFD Authentication";
And also add a note to RFC editor that YYYY is the number assigned to
I-D.ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers at the time of publication.

5.      The YANG module in sec.5.3, the description for all the augment
substatements are identical, distinction should be made here between the
descriptions of different modules being augmented.

6.      Sec.6.4 requests an update to the IANA-maintained YANG module
“iana-bfd-types.yang”, maybe it should also mention the revision of this YANG
module is to mirror the update to the registry “BFD Authentication Types” as
requested in sec.6.1.

7.      Appendix A, the description:
OLD:
  This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9127; see the
  RFC itself for full legal notices.
NEW:
  The initial version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9127; see the
  RFC itself for full legal notices.
  (and I think the reference below should be RFC XXXX instead of RFC 9127)

8.      Appendix A, the reference:
OLD:
    reference
      "I-D.ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication:
           Optimizing BFD Authentication,
       I-D.ietf-bfd-stability: BFD Stability.";
NEW:
    reference
      "RFC XXXX: Optimizing BFD Authentication
       RFC ZZZZ: BFD Stability";
And also add a note to RFC editor that ZZZZ is the number assigned to
I-D.ietf-bfd-stability at the time of publication.

9.      RFC 8340 should be informative reference rather than normative one.
See section 3.4 in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/: “If YANG tree
diagrams are used, then an informative reference to the YANG tree diagrams
specification MUST be included in the document."