Med, The remainder of these are covered in https://github.com/bfd-wg/optimized-auth/pull/75
> On Sep 5, 2025, at 2:29 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Consistent with other changes in this doc set, we need to highlight that this > is for an experimental feature: > > OLD: > "This YANG module augments the base BFD YANG model to add > attributes related to BFD Optimized Authentication. > > NEW: > "This YANG module augments the base BFD YANG model to add > attributes related to the experimental BFD Optimized Authentication. Done. >>> # Redundant behavior >>> >>> Section 3 >>> The contents of an Up packet MUST NOT change aside from the >>> Authentication Section without strong authentication. >>> >>> Vs. >>> >>> Section 6: >>> In this specification, the contents of an Up packet MUST NOT >> change >>> aside from the Authentication Section without strong >> authentication. >>> >>> Keep the normative language in one place. >> >> The text serves as an emphasis on the procedures and I suggest >> keeping each of the instances. > > [Med] You can keep the instances, but my suggestion was to keep the normative > language only once. I've chosen to lower-case the section 3 instance. I would not be shocked if someone else in later review notes this as a discrepancy. >>> # YANG terminology >>> >>> CURRENT: >>> This YANG module imports YANG Key Chain [RFC8177], A YANG Data >> Model >>> for Routing Management (NMDA version) [RFC8349], and YANG Data >> Model >>> for Bidirectional Forwarding 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)." >>> >> >> I suspect this comment is incorrect. Each of the points of >> complaint are the title of the RFC in question. :-) > > [Med] You can keep the titles but the point is that we don't import RFCs but > modules. You can fix this by saying "This YANG module imports modules defined > in ...". Thanks. Done. >>> >>> # Security template >>> >>> Please update 10.2 to follow the template in RFC8407bis. >> >> I've done so. Given that the template isn't fully genericized, >> please check the implemented. > > [Med] I suggest we make this change: > > OLD: > Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered > sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus > important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or > notification) to these data nodes. Specifically, the following > subtrees and data nodes have particular sensitivities/ > vulnerabilities: > > There are no read-only data nodes defined in this model. > > NEW: > > There are no particularly sensitive readable data nodes. Done. However, note 8407bis-28's current text is what lead me to the prior text. Consider recommending a change to that document that closes the gap. -- Jeff
