[bess] Some comments on draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang-04

wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com> Thu, 18 July 2019 09:52 UTC

Return-Path: <wangzitao@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A6512001A; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 02:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id idXUFaWFQ53Q; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 02:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9916B1201A8; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 02:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8A777BE396FC49E54921; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:52:00 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM405-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:51:59 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by DGGEMM405-HUB.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 17:51:41 +0800
From: wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Some comments on draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang-04
Thread-Index: AdU9TLbSLKfr5aySTDaJIh0vl/bTRQ==
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:51:40 +0000
Message-ID: <E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2DA1C783@DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2DA1C783DGGEMM527MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/OErAuMibdWucIYq0Izv6pxUb0mU>
Subject: [bess] Some comments on draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang-04
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:52:05 -0000

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed the draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang-04. And I have the following comment:
# First of all, this draft has expired, and L3VPN YANG is a very useful model, so please update it as soon as possible.
And for the YANG model,
# Is it necessary to define two branches to distinguish IPv4 and IPv6? Why not define a type to distinguish the IPv4 and IPv6?
# Why does the export-to-global not refers to routing-policy?
# Is it necessary to configure routing-table-limit both in network-instance and bgp:ipv4-unicast?
# Why the instance attribute within import-from-global does not use the leafref to refer to network-instance?

Best Regards!