From: Rtg-bfd <[email protected]> on behalf of Jeffrey Haas 
<[email protected]>
Sent: 17 August 2020 21:45

On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:21:22AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Working Group,
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited/
>
> With apologies to the authors of BFD unsolicited, this document is past due
> for Working Group Last Call.  The primary holdup on the document had been
> last minute interaction with the RFC Editor with regard to its impact on the
> BFD Yang model.  That work had completed some time ago.  (The Yang model,
> however, is still lingering in MISREF state.)
>
> This begins a last call period ending on 16 August.

The last call period has ended with a few comments from Greg and Raj that
should be addressed before we continue.

It'd also be helpful to hear from additional reviewers before we advance
this document.

<tp>
As an additional reviewer (I think I have the right I-D:-)

The authors of the I-D have different affiliations to the editors of the YANG 
module

The Abstract/Introduction make no mention of a YANG module

There is no statement whether or not the module is NMDA compliant

The tree diagrams would be easier to validate if there some text, two or three 
sentences saying what they were trying to do, so that it could be checked 
whether or not the YANG does so

The tree diagrams could do with a reference to the RFC that explains the symbols

The titles used in the references for this I-D and to a lesser extent that of 
bfd-yang are not the titles I see for the I-D

YANG features should have a reference

revision 2019-06-26

Unless and until IANA considerations register a YANG module, there is no YANG 
module

security considerations mentions access control - I am unsure whether this is 
access control in general or YANG NACM or both

YANG Security is out of date - TLS 1.2? No way.

bfd-yang is MISREF because of mpls-base-yang which has just undergone a 
significant revision on the penultimate day of IETF Last Cal; probably ok but I 
plan to check later this week i.e. I advise not rushing into publication just 
yet

Tom Petchl


-- Jeff



Reply via email to