[tcpm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07: 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-tcpm-yang-tcp/



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

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Yoshifumi Nishidar for the shepherd's detailed write-up
including the WG consensus even if it lacks the justification of the intended
status and uses an unusual template.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Section 1

```
   As such, TCP is implemented on network
   elements that can be configured via network management protocols such
   as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].
```
AFAIK, NETCONF & RESTCONF can also be used to monitor/collect statistics. So
"configured" seems rather limited.

### Section 1 YANG usefulness

I wonder whether the paragraph containing: `Moreover, many existing TCP/IP
stacks do not use YANG data models.` really brings any value to this document.

### Section 1, orthogonal or not ?

```
   This specification is orthogonal to the Management Information Base
   (MIB) for the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC4022].  The
   basic statistics defined in this document follow the model of the TCP
   MIB.
```
Is the model is based on the MIB, can it really be orthogonal to it ?

## NITS

### listner ?

Is there a typo in "listner" ?

### Section 3.1

Perhaps a rendering issue, but "TCP-AO TCP-AO" is probably wrong ;-)

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments