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

["Scharf, Michael" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for this review. A reply can be found below. I apologize for the long delay over the holiday season.

The authors have published a version -08 that hopefully addresses your comments. The full diff for -08 is available at:  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-08

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 8:04 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> 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.

Agreed. We have reworded this to "configured and managed".

> ### 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.

There has been quite some discussion in TCPM about the relevance of YANG for TCP stacks, and this paragraph tried to capture that. A significant number of TCP implementers in TCPM has never dealt with YANG models, which is at the time of writing mostly used in routers and other network equipment, but not in client and server operating systems. 

Yet, your question seems reasonably. We have this removed this paragraph -08. If somebody insists in having this text back as additional background, please speak up!

> ### 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 ?

Rephrased to "does not deprecate"

> ## NITS
> 
> ### listner ?
> 
> Is there a typo in "listner" ?

Yep. Sorry for that.

> ### Section 3.1
> 
> Perhaps a rendering issue, but "TCP-AO TCP-AO" is probably wrong ;-)

This should be fixed in -08.

Thanks!

Michael