Re: [Detnet] Comments on detnet-yang-15 Re: [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-yang-14

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 05/01/2022 20:04, Don Fedyk wrote:
> Hi Tom
>
> Comments Inline [Don]
> Also incorporated, https://github.com/detnet-wg/draft-ietf-detnet-yang

One follow-up in line

Tom Petch

> Thanks
> Don
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 6:40 AM
>
> Borrowing a useful cc: with a related topic
>
> two documents in the YANG module need adding to the I-D References
> RFC8938
> [Don] OK on this one
> IEEE 802.1Qcx-2020
> [Don] I see. Yes
>
> contact URL
> insecure, obsolete - https://datatracker ...
> [Don] Fixed
>
> Editor: Mach Chen
> not in the authors of the I-D
> [Don] Fixed
>
> TLP out of date
> [Don] TLP?  I changed the date reference in the XML header.  It should line up with the module date.

Look in the YANG module and the TLP refer to Simplified BSD License [sic].

This changed in 2020 - I cannot recall an announcement thereof - and the 
new one is Revised BSD License as in 
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1

Tom Petch


> Reference: this ID when published
> Reference: "RFC XXXX: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) YANG Model
> [Don] I think the RFC editor correct this on publication.
>
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> On 09/11/2021 20:06, Xufeng Liu via Datatracker wrote:
>> Reviewer: Xufeng Liu
>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>>
>> Thanks to authors for addressing the previous review comments.
>>
>> The updates look good. The followings are a few additional nits:
>>
>> 1) In the model, “container flow-spec” has been changed to “container
>> traffic-spec”, but the description has not been updated, shown as below:
>>
>>            container traffic-spec {
>>              description
>>                "Flow-specification specifies how the Source transmits
>>                 packets for the flow.  This is the promise/request of the
>>                 Source to the network.  The network uses this flow
>>                 specification to allocate resources and adjust queue
>>                 parameters in network nodes.";
>>
>> 2) Most names of list and leaf-list have been fixes. The following
>> three were
>> missed: “leaf-list member-apps” should be “leaf-list member-app”
>> “leaf-list member-services” should be “leaf-list member-service”
>> “leaf-list member-fwd-sublayers” should be “leaf-list member-fwd-sublayer”
>>
>> 3) Section 10.  Security Considerations would need to include a list
>> of “sensitive or vulnerable” nodes.  RFC 8349 shows an example.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Xufeng