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

[Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]>]

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







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