Re: [i2rs] WG LC: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-07.txt

Tom and Qin:

During the summer as an chair, I am a bit more flexible on the closing for
WGs.    This WG LC was to close by this week, but I will extended it 2 weeks
to allow two things to  happen: 
1) RTGWG to provide WG LC 
2) I2RS members to address Qin's changes to address Tom Petch's comments. 

Cheerily, Sue Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 1:04 AM
To: tom petch; Susan Hares; i2rs@ietf.org
Cc: russ@riw.us
Subject: RE: [i2rs] WG LC: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-07.txt

Hi, Tom:
Thank for your valuable review. See comments inline below.
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 tom petch
发送时间: 2019年8月16日 20:00
收件人: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; i2rs@ietf.org
抄送: russ@riw.us
主题: Re: [i2rs] WG LC: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-07.txt

Not ready

The text says
    /*Consider udpating this part to make use of
draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel*/ Well yes, consider it and come to a
conclusion otherwise I cannot see how this is ready to advance.
[Qin]: Good catch, will fix this. The idea is to align with RFC7224 and
reuse iana-interface-type.

The YANG module contains many references - good - but they are not in the
I-D references; again, not ready to advance.  I see

4761
4762
6325
6326
7348

802.1ad
802.1ah
802.1Q

[Qin]:Fixed.
IANA considerations references RFC7950 - RFC 6020 is better here as all that
RFC7950 says is go see RFC6020.
[Qin]:Agree, will update based on your suggestion.

OLD

       This version of this YANG module is part of
       draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topo-07;

NEW
       This version of this YANG module is part of
        "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Layer-2 Network Topologies"

[Qin]:Fixed.
You also have this unsuitable reference twice in the state module
[Qin]:Fixed.
The state module lacks references for the imports [Qin]:Fixed.
The state module description clause seems misleading; it is only the state
part of a module when NMDA is not supported.
[Qin]:Fixed.
Appendix A - is it Normative?  The customary convention is the Appendices
are not unless stated otherwise and there is no statement here.
[Qin]:No, will make this clear.
'An Example' does not use the addresses set aside for documentation
[Qin]:Good catch, will use RFC7042 recommended address range.
What is the closing date for this Last call?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: <i2rs@ietf.org>
Cc: <russ@riw.us>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 4:42 PM

> Greetings:
>
>
>
> This draft on L2 network topology has been reviewed by the I2RS WG 3
times.
>
> However, in discussion with the ADs it is deemed appropriate to do one
more
>
> WG LC and include any input from rtgwg or grow.
>
>
>
> Please indicate whether you support publication of this document.
>
> In your comments, please indicate "support" or no "support".
>
>
>
> If you feel there issues that need to be resolved,
>
> Please indicate whether these issues are editorial,
>
> Yang syntax, or technical content.
>
>
>
> It would be helpful to indicate whether you know of
>
> Network deployments or potential network deployments of this draft.
>
>
>
> Cheerily,
>
>
>
> Sue Hares
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> i2rs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Re: [i2rs] WG LC: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-07.txt - Extended to 8/30/2019