Re: [i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Lixing,

I hear that you are concerned.  I still haven't seen your IPR response to
the I2RS mailing list.
Your work is, of course, quite appreciated.

If there is clear justification - that can be sent to the I2RS Chairs and
me, then I am ok with
seeing that and making a call around the authors.

This needs to resolve ASAP.  This is the last draft of i2rs that is not in
IETF Last Call and the
WG is being shut at IETF 101 in 5 weeks.

Regards,
Alia

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:04 PM, [e-mail] <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Alia
> I cann't agree it. I don't stall the process, I just don't give the
> comments. I contributed a lot to this draft.
>
> Best Regards
> Lixing Wang
>
>
> -------- 原始邮件 --------
> 主题：Re: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09
> 发件人：Alia Atlas
> 收件人：[e-mail]
> 抄送：Susan Hares ,Amit Dass ,[e-mail],draft-ietf-
> [e-mail]
>
>
>
> Lixia,
>
> When an internet-draft is submitted, there is an irrevocable and permanent
> copyright given to the IETF.
> Authors also retain their own copyright, of course.
>
> The draft has 6 authors; there is always a need to justify that.  The IETF
> strongly prefers no more than
> 5 authors.  The fact that you have stalled the process because you did not
> respond to the IPR query
> does not help.
>
> WG Chairs may appoint and replace editors and authors of WG drafts.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:17 PM, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hello Susan,
>> I'm the original author of this draft.
>> Even now 70% of this draf is written by me, I have 70% copyright of this
>> draft.
>> So you cann't remove my name.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Lixing Wang
>>
>> 发自我的华为手机
>>
>>
>> -------- 原始邮件 --------
>> 主题：RE: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09
>> 发件人：Susan Hares
>> 收件人：'Amit Dass' ,'Alia Atlas'
>> 抄送：[e-mail],
>>
>>
>>
>> Amit:
>>
>>
>>
>> Remove one of the authors.   Please consider removing LIxing Wang.   I
>> have not received an IPR statement from this person.   Please do this
>> today.   I apologize for the delay in responding.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sue
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Amit Dass [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 12, 2018 8:23 AM
>> *To:* Alia Atlas
>> *Cc:* Susan Hares; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model
>> [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* FW: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model
>> -09
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Alia,
>>
>>
>>
>> Apologies for the delay. Needed to redo all again due to the laptop
>> crashed. Updated the draft with the below comments. Couldn’t upload the
>> same due to max 5 author limit kicking in.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Amit
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 10, 2018 1:51 AM
>> *To:* Amit Dass <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* Re: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model
>> -09
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Amit,
>>
>>
>>
>> It has been three weeks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you please get the update ASAP?  I need to get it reviewed and into
>> IETF Last Call.
>>
>> As you know, I am closing I2RS at IETF 101 - which means this draft needs
>> to be on the March 8 telechat.
>>
>> That means it really should be in IETF Last Call by February 16 - and I
>> am traveling all next week
>>
>> and busy.   I REALLY need it ASAP to review.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alia
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Amit Dass <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sue,
>>
>> I expect to have some free time during this week.  Should be able to send
>> the update by Monday next week.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Amit
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 10:55 AM
>> To: Amit Dass <[e-mail]>; 'Ebben Aries' <[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model
>> -09
>>
>> Amit:iir
>>
>> Do you think you and your co-authors can do this within a few days.   I
>> would like to forward the publication request.
>>
>> Also, please remember to look at the latest Revised datastore draft and
>> yang tree module drafts.
>>
>> Sue Hares
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Amit Dass [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 4:53 AM
>> To: Ebben Aries; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model
>> -09
>>
>> Thanks Ebben for reviewing the draft. I will update the same based on
>> below comments and feedback.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Amit
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ebben Aries [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 9:33 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09
>>
>> Reviewer: Ebben Aries
>> Review result: On the Right Track
>>
>> 1 module in this draft:
>> - [e-mail]
>>
>> No YANG validation errors or warnings (from pyang 1.7.3 and yanglint
>> 0.14.59)
>>
>> 0 examples are provided in this draft (section 3.12 of
>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15)
>>
>> Module [e-mail]:
>> - yang-version statement missing - should be 1.1
>> - prefix 'iir' is recommended for this module, would 'rib' suffice better?
>> - import "ietf-inet-types" should reference RFC 6991 per (not as a
>> comment)
>>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.7
>> - import "ietf-interfaces" should reference RFC 7223 per
>>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.7
>> - import "ietf-yang-types" should reference RFC 6991 per
>>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.7
>> - Since this module imports "ietf-interfaces", a normative references
>> must be
>>   added per
>>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-3.9
>> - prefix "if" in the import "ietf-interfaces" can remove quotes to remain
>>   consistent with other imports
>> - Remove WG Chairs from contact information per
>>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
>> - Module description must contain most recent copyright notice per
>>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
>> - Module description should contain note to RFC Ed. and placeholder
>> reference
>>   to RFC when assigned
>>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
>> - Add placeholder reference and note to RFC Ed. for RFC when assigned
>>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
>> - Security Considerations should be updated to reflect new template at
>>   https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines
>> - Section 1.2 should be replaced with reference to
>>   draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02 rather (as-is in other i2rs
>> YANG
>>   drafts in progress) per
>>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#
>> section-2.5.1
>> - This module contains '12' features.  While it is understood the purpose
>> of
>>   these features in the module, take precaution as to complexity for
>> clients
>>   if they need to understand >= quantity of features per module in use on
>> a
>>   network-element.
>> - A few comments exist that are either unecessary or redundant.  Encode
>> the
>>   comment intent rather in description fields if need be.
>> - Per NMDA, which datastores are targeted for the module?  Will all RPC
>>   operations be acting upon the dynamic/ephemeral datastore?  It is not
>> clear
>>   to me if the intention is to be persistent or ephemeral
>>
>> General comments/Nits:
>> - references to 'def' could be expanded out to 'definition'
>> - references to 'decap' could be expanded out to 'decapsulation' for
>>   readability (across definitions and descriptions)
>> - Follow consistent capitalization of 'RIB' throughout document text.
>> Mixed
>>   use of 'Rib' and 'rib' exists (Outside of YANG node lowercase
>> definitions).
>> - Is it necessary to prefix all nodes under the nexthop container with
>>   "nexthop-"?
>> - Section 2.5 - route-add RPC - text mentions it is required that the
>> nh-add
>>   RPC be called as a pre-requisite however if the nh already exists and
>> the
>>   nexthop-id is known, this should not be necessary.  In addition, the
>> text
>>   reads 'or return' which should rather be a result of querying the
>>   appropriate node in the data tree.
>> - In 'IANA Considerations' - s/This document requests to register/This
>>   document registers/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>