Hello Authors, I got myself educated (a little bit) on the YANG modeling guidelines as part of the IESG review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/
Following are some YANG organization specific comments on each of the 3 documents. *1) For draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers* a) https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24.html#section-6.1 has to be moved from that document into the IANA considerations of this document. This IANA registry feeds into an IANA maintained YANG module that needs to be self-contained in this document where those two types are actually specified. *2) For draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication* a) The following sections need to be deleted (i.e., they have no place in any of these documents) because they refer to an IANA maintained YANG module https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24.html#section-6.4 https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24.html#name-updated-bfd-iana-module b) For the YANG Model in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-24.html#section-5.3 there are two options: i) It can be split so the main part related to optimized auth remains in this document and the part specific to the two ISAAC auth types is moved into draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers. IMHO this would be the correct and modular way to develop YANG modules. OR ii) It can be moved entirely into draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers to avoid the circular normative reference between these two drafts. This will also better align with (1) (a). I believe this is what Reshad was suggesting. *3) For draft-ietf-bfd-stability - all seems good to me from YANG perspective* Please let me know your thoughts and if you agree, it would be great to get some draft updates posted so we can start closing off review comments. Thanks, Ketan
