[MBONED]Re: Christopher Inacio's Discuss on draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[stndrds-inacio stndrds-inacio <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for addressing my concerns; the new text is better in my
opinion.  I'm clearing my discuss on the document.

Thank you,
chris


On Sun, Apr 19, 2026 at 9:38 PM linchangwang <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Christopher Inacio,
>
> Thank you for your valuable comments.
>
> I have updated version-09,
>
> Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang/09/
> Diff:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang-08&url2=draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang-09&difftype=--html
>
> All comments have been addressed.
> Please refer to the replies below under [Changwang] for details.
>
> Thanks,
> Changwang
>
>
> 发件人: Christopher Inacio via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> 发送时间: 2026年4月15日 9:17
> 收件人: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 主题: Christopher Inacio's Discuss on draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang-08: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Christopher Inacio has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang-08: 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-mboned-amt-yang/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Overall, the draft is well written and quite clear, I appreciate the
> effort that went into the drafting of this.
>
> While I have 3 bullet points in here, this is really centered on one
> particular
> topic: How to understand the "MUST"s in the Operational Considerations
> section.
>
> * In this section, the ‘MUST’ is a requirement of operations?  People
> ‘MUST’ do that?  (Like people ‘MUST NOT’ share their passwords?). Also,
> wouldn’t the tunnel just fail if there are protocol mismatches?
>   > 1367        5.  Operational Considerations
>   >
>   > 1369           This document specifies a YANG data model for AMT that
>   configures and > 1370           monitors address parameters for both
> Relay
>   and Gateway functions. > 1371           Operators MUST monitor for
> address
>   family mismatches between > 1372           associated address parameters
> to
>   ensure correct protocol operation, > 1373           tunnel
> establishment, and
>   forwarding behavior.
>
> [Changwang] In version-09, "MUST" has been changed to "have to."
>
> * The “MUST”s in the Operatonal Considerations section are not present in
> RFC7450, the protocol specification.  That effectively moves things where I
> would normal expect protocol negotiation errors into configuration checks.
> Further, it appears that many of the checks for this are reliant on human
> checking the configuration.  Is that correct?  I’m not clear on how to
> apply “MUST”s in a situation like this.
>
> [Changwang] In version-09, "MUST" has been changed to "have to."
>
>
> * Why is this in the operations section?  Isn’t this an implementation
> requirement?
>   > 1412           Upon detecting an address family mismatch, the device
> MUST
>   log an > 1413           appropriate error or alarm and prevent the
>   inconsistent configuration > 1414           from being applied.
> Corrective
>   actions include reconfiguring the > 1415           affected addresses to
>   match the intended address family and verifying > 1416           routing
>   reachability for the configured addresses.
>
> [Changwang] This is an important operational considerations per the
> guidance in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-04#section-5
> .
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks to the reviewers, Mike O., Behcet S., Robert W. (first time I read
> a YANG reviewer's review, actually,) for their insight.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。
> 禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中的信息。
> 如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！
> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New
> H3C, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is
> listed above.
> Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not
> limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by
> persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited.
> If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or
> email immediately and delete it!
>


-- 
Chris Inacio
Carnegie Mellon University