Early Review of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-01
review-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-01-yangdoctors-early-bjorklund-2019-08-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-01
Requested rev. 01 (document currently at 02)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2019-09-15
Requested 2019-07-18
Requested by Jeffrey Haas
Authors Enke Chen, Naiming Shen, Robert Raszuk, Reshad Rahman
Draft last updated 2019-08-19
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -01 by Martin Björklund (diff)
Comments
This document defines extensions to the BFD yang module (still pending IETF publication) for the feature modifications as defined in this document.
Assignment Reviewer Martin Bj√∂rklund 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-01-yangdoctors-early-bjorklund-2019-08-19
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/JJrun3fiY-gjy8zk0qiMUBwxLPU
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 02)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-08-19

Review
review-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-01-yangdoctors-early-bjorklund-2019-08-19

I have reviewed this document from a YANG model perspective only.

My only comment is actually for a grouping defined in ietf-bfd-type, but used in this module.  There is a choice "interval-config-type":

  +--rw unsolicited {bfd-unsol:unsolicited-params-global}?
       +--rw enable?                           boolean
       +--rw local-multiplier?                 multiplier
       +--rw (interval-config-type)?
          +--:(tx-rx-intervals)
          |  +--rw desired-min-tx-interval?    uint32
          |  +--rw required-min-rx-interval?   uint32
          +--:(single-interval) {single-minimum-interval}?
             +--rw min-interval?               uint32

This choice is not mandatory and doesn't have a default case, so the question is what happens if no nodes from the choice has been configured?   I would expect the choice to have a default case (but this then would apply to ietf-bfd-types, not this document.)