Hi Francesca, Thank you for the review. Please inline for the responses.
> On Apr 6, 2022, at 7:29 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker > <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > 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> Fixed. Will be published as part of the next update. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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) Good catch. The new revision should refer to this RFC number (XXXX), while maintaining the older revision (2021-10-21) for RFC 9127. Will update. > > 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". The min-interval and other other interval parameters (desired-min-tx-interval and required-min-rx-interval) are a choice statement. You get to either select the min-interval or the other two interval values. Thanks. > > > Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
