IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang-06
review-ietf-mboned-amt-yang-06-opsdir-lc-p-2026-04-07-00

Hi,

I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this
Internet-Draft.

The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related
Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that
adequate operational considerations are covered.

A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in
IETF Specifications"_ can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/.

While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area
Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback
received.

- Document: draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang

- Reviewer: Michael P

- Review Date: 07/04/2026

- Intended Status: Standards Track

---

## Summary

Choose one:

- Has Nits: This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.

## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis

This draft is well written, including foundational definitions and informative
references for readers. Thank you to the authors for including an Operational
Considerations section, which has been added in version -06.

This document is almost ready, but with a few nits outlined below.

---

## Nits

Operational considerations section includes "Operators MUST monitor for address
family mismatches" and "Network operators SHOULD implement configuration
validation and operational monitoring to detect such address family
mismatches". I found these slightly hard to parse. Is the correct parsing of
the second sentence that configuration validation is a SHOULD and operational
monitoring is a MUST, given the first sentence? Editorial suggestion would be
to clarify advice to operators here.

The Operational Consideration section focuses on monitoring and catching
mismatches that would cause errors, which is a key part of RFC 5706 bis.
However, are there other operational aspects which could be covered for example
on performance, fault or security management? See Appendix A of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/ for more
information. I don't think there's anything additional to add, but it is worth
stating that to show that all aspects have been considered but assessed to be
out of scope or not relevant for inclusion.

Section 4.2.2 highlights that the provisioning of the secret key is out of
scope, but worth including that in the security considerations section. I'd
also highlight that if secret key timeout value is writeable, then any changes
to that parameter could impact the intended security properties and operational
practices.

---