RE: Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-stability-19: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Mahesh,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

De : Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>
Envoyé : vendredi 5 septembre 2025 00:34
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>
Cc : The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; rtg-bfd@ietf. org <[e-mail]>; Reshad Rahman <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-stability-19: (with COMMENT)



Hi Med,

See comments inline with [mj1]


On Sep 4, 2025, at 1:02 AM, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Mahesh,

Thanks for the follow-up.

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

De : Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : mercredi 3 septembre 2025 19:03
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; rtg-bfd@ietf. org <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Reshad Rahman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-stability-19: (with COMMENT)



Hi Med,

Thanks for your review. See comments inline with [mj].



On Sep 3, 2025, at 8:06 AM, Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfd-stability-19: 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/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-stability/



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

Hi Ashesh, Mahesh, Ankur, Santosh, and Mach,

Thank you for the effort put into this document.

Thanks also to Gyan Mishra for the OPSDIR review and to Jeff for the follow-up.

Please find below some comments with a focus on the YANG part:

# YANG terminology

CURRENT:
  This YANG module imports Common YANG Types [RFC6991], A YANG Data
  Model for Routing [RFC8349], and YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
  Forwading Detection (BFD) [RFC9314].

This should reason about importing the various modules, not data models. Please
refer to 8407bis which says:

"Likewise, "YANG module" should be used when using terms related to YANG module
specifications (e.g., augmentation or deviation)."

[mj] Ok.
[Med] ACK

[mj1] On second look, these are the titles of the drafts, and therefore the guidance provided by 8407bis does not help.
[Med] It is actually. We don't import RFCs, but modules. You can keep the RFC titles if you wish but please tweak it, e.g.,

"This YANG module imports modules defined in REST_CURRENT_TEXT".





# Consistency

Section 7.2 has:

CURRENT: prefix "bfds";

I suggest to be consistent with the pattern used so far for BFD (bfd-ip-mh,
bfd-ip-sh, bfd-lag, etc.).

NEW: prefix bfd-s;
[Med] I guess this will be fixed.


# Description

Consider updating the description of the module to highlight this is about
experimental extensions.

[mj] Ok. How about this?

OLD:
    "This YANG module augments the base BFD YANG model to add
     attributes related to BFD Stability. In particular, it adds a
     a per-session count for BFD packets that are lost.

NEW:
    "This experimental YANG module augments the base BFD YANG model to add
     attributes related to BFD Stability. In particular, it adds a
     a per-session count for BFD packets that are lost.

[Med] As we don't have the notion of "experimental YANG module", I tend to prefer this wording:

NEW:
    "This YANG module augments the base BFD YANG model to add
     experimental attributes related to BFD Stability. In particular, it adds
     a per-session count for BFD packets that are lost.

[mj1] I am struggling to call them "experimental attributes". The attributes themselves are not experimental. It is the exercise of testing BFD for stability that is experimental. Therefore it would be better to say:

NEW1:

    "This YANG module augments the base BFD YANG model to add
     attributes related to the experiment of BFD Stability. In particular, it adds a
     a per-session count for BFD packets that are lost."

[Med] Works as well. Thanks.




# Feature Description

OLD:
      description
        "If supported, the feature allows for BFD sessions to be
         monitored for packets lost.";

NEW:
      description
        "Indicates that the implementation supports monitoring
         of packets lost in BFD sessions.";

[mj] We prefer the original description.
[Med] I don't parse the "if supported" part. The description should be describing what the feature is about. Whether this is reported or not by server will be follow normal behavior.

[mj1] Simplified it further to say:

NEW:
      description
         "This feature enables BFD sessions to be monitored for lost packets.";
[Med] This is better. Thanks.

# Modules live outside documents

OLD:
      description
        "BFD Null Auth type defined in this draft.";

NEW:
      description
        "BFD Null Auth type.";

[mj] But it is defined in the draft, therefore it is being called out as such.
[Med] Sure. Please use a reference statement for that.

[mj1] There is a reference statement that follows the description pointing to the draft.



# Security template

Please update 9.2 to follow the template in RFC8407bis.

# Normative references

RFC6241, RFC8040, RFC8446, 9000 should be listed as informative. Please refer
to the note at https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines

[mj] Ok.
[Med] Thanks.

[mj1] Done.






____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.