Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
Sent: 29 April 2021 15:27

Tom,

What you suggested seems pretty simple to fix. Hope the authors will address them soon.
p.s. the YANG doctor review  didn't mention using this style.

<tp>
Linda,

Yes. I notice that YANG doctors and I pick up on different things and also that different YANG doctors pick up on different things.  I did note that five drafts were reviewed by five different YANG doctors whereas my comments this week come from putting five I-D together to see how they fit and finding inconsistencies,or finding good practice in one I-D not in anoter  If one YANG doctor had reviewed all five they might have flagged more of what I have flagged (or may be not).  Thus I am keen on the choice of identifier, of its length, pattern, relationship to other identifiers and so on having experience of what I have found easy to use, easy to avoid making mistakes with and what not.  Some YANG doctors comment on this, e.g. on not having a suffix -grouping, -type, but others pass that by.

Tom Petch


Thank you very much.

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 5:24 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

From: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
Sent: 27 April 2021 16:49
Tom,

Can you please provide the concrete suggestions to the authors on the changes you like to see?

<tp>
Linda

I hope that you are still happy:-)

I thought some more (a bad habit of mine:-) about range and exact values and wonder why capability splits them into two separate identity.  This is not what the YANG modules say.

The usual way to model this is with a start and end and a comment that if only one value is required, then start equals end.  This is widely used throughout the IETF and is indeed used in draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec.... which has the approval of the IESG.

So, since the YANG always AFAICT allows both range and exact value, then why split them in capability?  Not wrong, but seems an unnecessary complication adding some 25 extra identity.

I can imagine a chip designer saying I can exact match at wire speed but not range match; but as I say, that is not what we have in the YANG.  It could be in the YANG e.g. as a feature but isn't in any IETF YANG module that I know of so chip designers are probably cleverer than I imagine!

Tom Petch

This is the second time of the WGLC for the draft. It would be very helpful to hear your suggestions during the WGLC window.

Thank you very much
Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:44 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16