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: 

 

Welcome to Singapore.  Wow!  Today’s going to be a long day for you.  Perhaps we should talk after you take a short nap. 

 

#1 definition - Section 3 still defines datastore uniquely, although you do point to the revised datastores.  It would be best to make the same reference in section 3. 

 

#2 No examples – Please confirm by asking Kent Watsen on list regarding the examples.   Otherwise, we’ll cycle on this when we get to the IESG. 

 

Also – please see the comments that were unresolved from Lada’s review of the L3 topology.   

 

Sue Hares 

 

 

From: Alexander Clemm [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:40 PM
To: [e-mail]; Susan Hares
Cc: 'Kent Watsen'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Alia Atlas'
Subject: Re: [i2rs] WG LC on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo (9/27/2017 to 10/11/2017) - WG Consensus declared by Chairs

 

Hi Sue, I just arrived in Singapore.

I did adopt the definition. This is addressed in -17. 

I did not put the example per earlier email exchange and at the time Kent seemed to be fine with that?

Thanks, Alex

Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36> 

 





On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:13 AM +0800, "Susan Hares" <[e-mail]> wrote:

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