Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-09: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Paul Wouters, Security AD, comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-08 CC @paulwouters ## COMMENTS ### bytes vs octets The document describes counters in packets and octets, however usually these counters are exposed as packets and bytes. It even presents this to the user as bytes: leaf tx-octets { type yang:counter64; config false; description "Outbound Packet bytes"; } Why not use "bytes" instead of "octets" everywhere? For example RFC 9061 has: leaf bytes { type uint64; default "0"; description "If the IPsec SA processes the number of bytes expressed in this leaf, the IPsec SA expires and SHOULD be rekeyed. The value 0 implies infinite."; } It also does not use "octets" _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
