Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04

["Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

I have started looking at the recent revision of the draft but haven’t managed to do a formal re-review yet. I will do one as soon as possible.

Apologies for the delay.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 9:02 PM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: YANG Doctors <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Sangwon Hyun <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04

Hi Reshad,
I believe that I have addressed your comments on I2NSF Registration Interface Data Model:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-05

If you are satisfied with the revision, could you update the Review result in the following page?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2019-06-28/

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 11:23 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Reshad,
Here is the revision letter for the revised draft, reflecting your comments along with the revised draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-05

If you have further comments and questions, please let me know.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:17 PM Reshad Rahman via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Reviewer: Reshad Rahman
Review result: On the Right Track

YANG Doctor review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04 (by Reshad
Rahman)

Major comments:
- Look at appendix B of RFC8407 for an example of how a YANG module should be
structured. This document does not abide to that. - Poor descriptions e.g.
"nsf-name" for leaf "nsf-name" etc - prefix "iiregi" doesn't seem right. What
about "nsfreg"? Probably needs coordination with the other I2NSF YANG modules
to have consistency between the prefixes. I see that YD Acee suggested
"nsfintf" for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06 - No unit specified
for bandwidth, processing (performance) - nsf-address is IPv4 specific -
Security considerations should list the nodes as per section 3.7 of RFC8407. -
Should this document be informational since 8329 is informational? - Section 2
should use RFC8174 also - Refer to RFC8407 instead of 6807 (YANG Guidelines) -
Examples should use IPv6 as examples (use the range from RFC3849). Kudos for
all the examples.

Minor comments and questions:
- The YANG trees such as Figure 6, 7 etc don't show the contents of the
groupings. So they don't help much. - nsf-port-address should be nsf-port? -
Section 4, last bullet. I am not an expert on I2NSF so not clear to me why this
query is needed, is it because NSF may not re-register after their capabilities
have been updated? Might be worth adding some explanation. - Have the examples
been validated?

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf


--
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>


--
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>