Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis-02: Discuss
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-bfd-rfc9127-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document. I have noticed one easy to fix error in the examples, and I additionally have two comments I'd like to talk about before the document is approved - these are non blocking, but answers are appreciated. Thanks, Francesca 1. ----- In this case, an interface named "Bundle-Ether1" of interface type "ieee8023adLag" has a desired transmit interval and required receive interval set to 10 ms. FP: But the example actually uses intervals of 100ms: <desired-min-tx-interval> 100000 </desired-min-tx-interval> <required-min-rx-interval> 100000 </required-min-rx-interval> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. ----- This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9127; see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; FP: Just double checking as I am not sure about what's common for new revisions of existing modules - Should it be this RFC number, rather than or additionally to 9127? (several occurrences in the doc) 3. ----- Section 2.1.1. FP: I was expecting to see some text about expected behavior if both "min-interval" and any of the other interval parameters are (incorrectly) used at the same time. I expect a value should be discarded, which one? Also, maybe a bit of a late comment and I will leave it to the authors and wg to decide if including it is worth it, in Section 3 it would have been useful to see one example using the "min-interval".
