Re: [i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-04

One way to support notifications for topology in a generic way will be through YANG-Push (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-15).  Configure a subscription for on-change updates against the topology data tree.  That will give applications what they need without the definition of custom notifications (which can of course also still be done).

--- Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 1:39 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; 'Ladislav Lhotka' <lhotka@nic.cz>
> Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; 'Martin Vigoureux' <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-
> topology-04
> 
> Jie and Lada:
> 
> I've recently listened to the I2RS meeting in IETF 101.
> 
> Chris Hopps asked about the notifications in L2.  He was asking about a more
> general use of the notification that might be useful in the
> 
> I'm not really sure how to approach responding to his operational request - since
> it really impacts all topology models.  My inclination is to push this draft through
> into RFC usage, and then to work through a "-bis"
> functionality.
> 
> Jie - would you ask the individuals pushing for L2 model if that works for them.
> 
> Lada - would you ask the Yang doctors if this is the right approach to take.
> Of course, this might be easier if we had versioning instead of a model name
> change.
> 
> Sue Hares
> -----Original Message-----
> From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dongjie (Jimmy)
> Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 10:09 PM
> To: Ladislav Lhotka; yang-doctors@ietf.org
> Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-04
> 
> Hi Lada,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your review comments. Please see some replies inline:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:lhotka@nic.cz]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 9:32 PM
> > To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
> > Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
> > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: Yangdoctors early review of
> > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-04
> >
> > Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka
> > Review result: Ready
> >
> > This draft and YANG modules contained therein fit into the framework
> > of I2RS network topology models. I have no substantial comments, from
> > the YANG point of view this document is ready to be published.
> >
> > Comments and questions:
> >
> > 1. What is the purpose of the 'flag-type' type and 'flag-identity'
> identity?
> > There are no identities derived from the latter.
> 
> The "flag-type" type is used in the grouping "l2-network-attributes", "l2-node-
> attributes" and "l2-link-attributes".
> 
> While there is no identities derived from the "flag-identity", it is used in the
> typedef flag-type. Is this OK?
> 
> > 2. Some descriptions overuse capitalization. For example, instead of
> > 'VLAN
> Name'
> > I would suggest 'VLAN name'.
> 
> Thanks for catching this. Will fix in next revision.
> 
> > 3. An example of an instance document in an appendix would be very
> helpful.
> 
> Thanks for your suggestion. We will add an example to the appendix.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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