Early Review of draft-ietf-mboned-cbacc-02
review-ietf-mboned-cbacc-02-yangdoctors-early-rahman-2021-04-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mboned-cbacc-02
Requested revision 02 (document currently at 06)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2021-04-05
Requested 2021-03-08
Requested by Lenny Giuliano
Authors Jake Holland , Kyle Rose , Max Franke
I-D last updated 2025-10-17 (Latest revision 2025-10-17)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Reshad Rahman (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -05 by Brian Trammell (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -05 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Comments 
Recommend cluster review of draft-ietf-mboned-cbacc-02 and draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-01 as they are companion docs with shared concepts.
Assignment Reviewer Reshad Rahman
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-mboned-cbacc by YANG Doctors Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/JvP1I3tzwlIjapb-MEUqVD66j2Y
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 06)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2021-04-11
review-ietf-mboned-cbacc-02-yangdoctors-early-rahman-2021-04-11-00
YANG Doctor review of rev-02 by Reshad Rahman.

Comments/questions:

The document and YANG module-name have CBACC, yet the module prefix is "ambi",
is this on purpose? Intuitively, I was expecting the prefix to be "cbacc".

For presence statement, use CBACC-enabled instead of cbacc-enabled?

Is max-mss for a TCP Max Segment Size, or is this really max packet size? And
no need for jumbograms since this is for UDP?

Consider renaming max-bits-per-second to something along the lines of
max-speed. Description says kilobits (not bits).

Add "unit" statement e.g. to data-rate-window and max-bits-per-second

OOC, why so many priorities? I'm used to seeing 3 or 8 bits for priority.

Security considerations should mention the YANG data nodes.

Regards,
Reshad.