[OPSAWG] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-16: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-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-opsawg-nat-yang/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the easy-to-read document!  I just have a few comments and potential nits
I noticed.

It was somewhat interesting to me that basically everything is config rw, including ports and
addresses that would normally be assigned internally by the NAT, but I don't see this as
problematic.

Section 2.1

                              Considerations about instructing explicit
   dynamic means (e.g., [RFC6887], [RFC6736], or [RFC8045]) are out of
   scope.  [...]

I'm having trouble parsing this; is it maybe "instructing by explicit
dynamic means" or "explicit dynamic mappings"?

Section 3

What's the relationship between hold-down-timeout and hold-down-max -- that
is, if the maximum number of ports in the pool gets hit, to the oldest
ports in the pool get ejected even if they haven't timed out, or what
happens?

I don't expect this to need to be in the document, but I'm curious what the
use case for the all-algs-enable leaf is.

I may be confused, but is the ordering relationship between low-threshold
and high-threshold correct?  From the description it would seem like we
need low < high, but I'm reading the text as requiring low >= high.
Also, the error-message for that "must" stanza talks about port numbers,
not percentage thresholds.

        container connection-limits {
          [...]
          list limit-per-protocol {
            [...]
            leaf limit {
              type uint32;
              description
                "Rate-limit the number of protocol-specific mappings
                 and sessions per instance.";

This is a maximum, not a rate-limit, I think?

Section A.6

   EAMs may be enabled jointly with statefull NAT64.  This example shows
   a NAT64 function that supports static mappings:

nit: "stateful"