Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-yang-10

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your useful comments:

> The YANG module is totally devoid of references, which has to be fixed, at
> least in part, at some stage and the earlier it is fixed, the less time consuming
> reviewing is.
> 

We will add references when applicable

> s.5 says there is no open issue in this version.  The text gives the lie to this with
> 'open issue' in four places
> 

To avoid inconsistent information, we will remove section 5 and use only github to track open issues

> there are YANG statements commented out.  The last time I saw this it was
> because the Author could not make the YANG work
> 

We will review the YANG code and track these as open issues in github

> It is another of those module that is really 100 or so independent YANG
> fragments in a different order to those other modules that are really 100 or so
> independent YANG fragments.  As was said in a recent IESG review, it is a
> shame we cannot go back and change the TEAS i.e. they got the underlying
> structure wrong:-(
> 

Are you referring to the multiple augment statements to augment the TE label/bandwidth information defined in RFC8795?

They are based on the guidelines provided by section 6 of RFC8795.

> the choice of YANG prefix makes comprehension harder

There is an on-going discussion within the WG: we will align with the outcome of that discussion

Italo (on behalf of co-authors)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: mercoledì 10 febbraio 2021 12:20
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli=[e-mail]>;
> CCAMP <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-
> yang-10
> 
> From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> on behalf of Daniele Ceccarelli
> <daniele.ceccarelli=[e-mail]>
> Sent: 09 February 2021 12:28
> 
> CCAMP,
> 
> All the IPR declarations regarding draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-yang-10have
> been collected, this starts the polling for its adoption by CCAMP.
> 
> The poll will last 2 weeks and will end on Tuesday February 23rd.
> 
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support"
> and a motivation for  your reply, mandatory for the "not support" and nice to
> have for the "support".
> 
> <tp>
> This will be an expensive I-D to work on.
> 
> The YANG module is totally devoid of references, which has to be fixed, at
> least in part, at some stage and the earlier it is fixed, the less time consuming
> reviewing is.
> 
> s.5 says there is no open issue in this version.  The text gives the lie to this with
> 'open issue' in four places
> 
> there are YANG statements commented out.  The last time I saw this it was
> because the Author could not make the YANG work
> 
> It is another of those module that is really 100 or so independent YANG
> fragments in a different order to those other modules that are really 100 or so
> independent YANG fragments.  As was said in a recent IESG review, it is a
> shame we cannot go back and change the TEAS i.e. they got the underlying
> structure wrong:-(
> 
> the choice of YANG prefix makes comprehension harder
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Daniele & Fatai
> 
>