Hi,

I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this Internet-Draft. 

The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that adequate operational considerations are covered.

A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in IETF Specifications"_ can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/.

While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback received.


- Document: draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang

- Reviewer: Michael P 

- Review Date: 07/04/2026

- Intended Status: Standards Track

 
---

## Summary 

Choose one: 


- Has Nits: This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.


## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis 

This draft is well written, including foundational definitions and informative references for readers. Thank you to the authors for including an Operational Considerations section, which has been added in version -06. 

This document is almost ready, but with a few nits outlined below. 


---

## Nits 

Operational considerations section includes "Operators MUST monitor for address family mismatches" and "Network operators SHOULD implement configuration validation and operational monitoring to detect such address family mismatches". I found these slightly hard to parse. Is the correct parsing of the second sentence that configuration validation is a SHOULD and operational monitoring is a MUST, given the first sentence? Editorial suggestion would be to clarify advice to operators here. 

The Operational Consideration section focuses on monitoring and catching mismatches that would cause errors, which is a key part of RFC 5706 bis. However, are there other operational aspects which could be covered for example on performance, fault or security management? See Appendix A of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/ for more information. 
I don't think there's anything additional to add, but it is worth stating that to show that all aspects have been considered but assessed to be out of scope or not relevant for inclusion. 

Section 4.2.2 highlights that the provisioning of the secret key is out of scope, but worth including that in the security considerations section. I'd also highlight that if secret key timeout value is writeable, then any changes to that parameter could impact the intended security properties and operational practices. 

---