Re: [i2rs] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13.txt

Susan Hares <> Wed, 24 June 2020 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A0E3A10C2; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sp41pERM430P; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1CFF3A11B8; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To:, 'Stig Venaas' <>,
References: <> <10633_1593022414_5EF397CE_10633_415_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330314E691E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <10633_1593022414_5EF397CE_10633_415_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330314E691E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:24:37 -0400
Message-ID: <001601d64a5d$1a30ad60$4e920820$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQLhPOLup/Ik+OOavEMMztXCUAwxugGe09qmpsVJrdA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200624-2, 06/24/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:24:53 -0000


I did report the issue in the write-up, and the Tools people said they were working on it. 


-----Original Message-----
From: [] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 2:14 PM
To: Stig Venaas; <>
Subject: RE: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13.txt

Hi Stig, 

Thank you for the review. These nits will be fixed in the next iteration. 

As per this comment: 

"There may be some minor model issues, tracker says: Yang Validation 9 errors, 2 warnings." 

Actually, this is an issue of the IETF datatracker that only populates in IETF-defined modules. In particular, IEEE-related modules are not populated in as revealed by the error message:

ietf-l2-topology@2019-10-15.yang:31: error: module "ieee802-dot1q-types" not found in search path ==

Unless I'm mistaken, Sue has reported this issue in the write-up. Will look further on the warnings, though. 


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Stig Venaas [] Envoyé : mercredi 24 juin 
> 2020 19:07 À : <> Cc :; 
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-; 
> Objet : RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13.txt
> Hello,
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this 
> draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or 
> routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG 
> review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is 
> to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about 
> the Routing Directorate, please see 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, 
> it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other 
> IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them 
> through discussion or by updating the draft.
> Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13.txt
> Reviewer: Stig Venaas
> Review Date: 2020-06-24
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-06-25
> Intended Status: Standards Track
> Summary:
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
> should be considered prior to publication.
> Comments:
> The document is well written and easy to read. I only found some minor 
> nits that should be taken care of.
> Major Issues:
> No major issues found.
> Minor Issues:
> No minor issues found.
> Nits:
> The idnits tool found some nits; regarding references in particular.
> There may be some minor model issues, tracker says: Yang Validation 9 
> errors, 2 warnings.
> The abstract is rather short, I think it would be worth going into a 
> little more detail.
> In Introduction “A sample example” should maybe just be “An example”?
> For grouping l2-network-type, shouldn’t “indicates” be capitalized?
>       presence "indicates L2 Network";
> For leaf maximum-frame-size, missing space before PPP
>       if L2 frame is other type (e.g.,PPP), the L2
> For l2-termination-point-type, leaf tag, should say “is supported”
>       "Defines whether lag is support or not.";
> In the security considerations, should be “defines”
>       The Layer 2 topology module define
> In Appendix A, should say “represents”.
>       implementations, a corresponding companion module is defined that
>       represent the operational state of layer 2 network topologies.  
> The
> Regards,
> Stig


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.