Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D6374 COMMENTS S 2.1.4. > Minimum TTL of incoming BFD control packets. > > 2.1.4. MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels > > For MPLS-TE tunnels, BFD is configured under the MPLS-TE tunnel since > the desired failure detection parameters is a property of the MPLS-TE "parameters are" S 2.8. > > 2.8. BFD over LAG hierarchy > > A "lag" node is added under the "bfd" node in control-plane-protocol. > The configuration and operational state data for each BFD LAG session > is under this "lag" node. There seems to be a lot of replication (e.g., number of sessions). Is it possible to somehow refactor this so that's common?
