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

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

We have just submitted draft-ietf-ccamp-eth-client-te-topo-yang-05 addressing all your comments as discussed below

Thanks, Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Italo Busi <[e-mail]>
> Sent: giovedì 18 febbraio 2021 22:25
> To: 'tom petch' <[e-mail]>; Daniele Ceccarelli
> <daniele.ceccarelli=[e-mail]>; CCAMP
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-
> yang-10
> 
> 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
> >
> >