Re: [i2rs] WG LC on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo (9/27/2017 to 10/11/2017) - WG Consensus declared by Chairs

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Alex: 

 

I had hoped to celebrate IETF-100 with submitting
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17 to the IESG.  However, there are still
a few things to resolve from Kent Watens review
(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg04501.html). 

 

In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I found the following
things addressed: 

1)      "ietf-network" uses prefix "nd", should be "nw" and
"ietf-network-topology" uses  prefix "lnk" should be "nt" or maybe "nwtp".


2)      the groupings "link-ref" and "tp-ref" descriptions should indicate
why they are defined but not used in these modules

3)     Both /nd:networks/network/network-id and
/nd:networks/network/link/link-id are the key fields to their respective
lists, but they are not the first nodes listed in the list.

 

In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I do not find the
following things address that Ken commented on: 

1)      Kent's comment: Use cases exist in appendix A, but yang examples do
not exist.  

Fix: Short examples could be put in Appendix A with each use case) 

2)      Kent's comment: The document defines its own "datastore" term,
rather than import the term from revised-datastores.  

Question: Section 3 still gives its own datastore definition.  Is there a
reason I missed on this approach? 

Could you wrap up these two issues today and submit a -18 to the IETF
drafts?  I'd love to chat today about these two issues. 

Susan Hares

(shepherd/co-chair) 

 

She