Re: [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-12
Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 27 April 2018 17:30 UTC
Return-Path: <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD631270A7; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DYPL5UzLHtUE; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4744D127058; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 71-v6so2741884ith.2; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/YyOXax9DCEOUpLiHacPZLjgBqNYEh8yOdHNks1QJ5s=; b=JdDAO+Z3gMyGtycHYyUoZTYdzQf7XE7ZIDtq1YUd1G7tlFs8aC4AAqiHJIXJBKi20E dC8eqsH1nZy+/9QJTTpxgNtxjzlC+5EnPsNgkbY8b1zydUj6alhVopxTlpT1W0zSO3b3 xDoO4l+OX5ctZBksnrJ9Rp/5d2Suo/frmybCjz5a99+iB0evaxL0nqyBHRt1ApAn5e7t eqzLqMCntIF0aJx9LTh/Q1FYwcqgx8S1DHxzzYSJZGEUw1NF7zhUVs5h5pORJ7rq1Zxu iDw4iYyaSeeBeRF8pNL9+8OT2fcQC2hbcuPgRpTRbIUFFyi+knITkvmoHAnfesP8gMW+ snhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/YyOXax9DCEOUpLiHacPZLjgBqNYEh8yOdHNks1QJ5s=; b=aQBP9DCwR0JoIw04pk4JhGk4G4rw/6C5YJ3b6o95a9pZk1rp97zLp5p0EBBdv6aSSc bjCNqzvYTdZ6kTsx+MSX8VSQstqwwnF+MLDctLmAdd2oM364yFWFhjuVhPQY6wdq4KtA oIvgNGkfi88PIYt9SoMeE7Xa2b8ADhPE5qTp4zt3IpTeSwEOhLirn9DDYUZJTX89ZYgP OIr43EKpiHDfOKymCZhUJy89nUQOL8qvkqyb+n/dOhenlReSg5bLRvVB3+JzJ6e0adB6 ik7OFguKJ0sUSFggcaVJ8w9+l7C7+JO+45t+gfYodmb+75BrOEv3JZtqlpq0Yrg3+zu6 PwGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDJnFAiHkPdUu398SkNCTDVyB9ko98R+RYfl1DGiWyoTTDT8cfm 22s2bx7Nnajdoh3EYfhYVS5Yia6T1I0JTEXA+IcyZQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZosCKc6xrxPWhEqH9W9OEEfR6eieDVttFpx6i6X0+jV5PbUxPNpDpSB7f22S0/ePRxxUTbfpikANU9PVaJgMqk=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:a407:: with SMTP id z7-v6mr2820114ite.125.1524850243601; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.137.195 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 13:30:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPQSyOaRbFb8JFP6G+rxAXSdiMVLu9-xUvhU8A9JsKOrng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-12
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pim-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-yang.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001b07ba056ad7ddac"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PHby3OEtYpLeU0olEam5AXyPapA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:30:47 -0000
Hi Juergen, Thanks for looking at the document and providing further valuable comments. We have updated the document with https://tools.ietf.org/ html/draft-ietf-pim-yang-16 to address these issues. Besides these fixes, authors and PIM Working Group have further considered and discussed the type of statistic counters in the model. We have decided to used 64-bit type instead of 32-bit type: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/ti58tMl9ppt7r19DxN8tTAn8n4w https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Pifg3ABQVgvsFWLTIsI9yLR6RXA Thanks, - Xufeng On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I have checked version -15 today. The document has improved quite a > bit. Thanks for taking my comments into account. Section 2.5 is much > clearer now and I believe the new MIB mapping section is helpful. > Thanks also for expanding the security considerations section and > adding the example in the Appendix. > > Below are some questions that came up during my review of -15: > > a) I did not validate the example in Appendix A using tools but I > wonder whether > > "pim-sm:sm": [null] > > is really correct. Should this not be > > "ietf-pim-sm:sm": [null] > > in JSON? There are multiple occurances of this. I think the 'sm' > node you refer to here is a container - so why would it be [null]? > [Xufeng]: Fixed. > I also wonder whether this is correct: > > "source-address": "ietf-routing-types:*", > > RFC 7951 seems to indicate that this should simply be "*" and not > "ietf-routing-types:*". So again, has the example been validated? > [Xufeng]: Fixed. Also fixed the validation tool to correct other errors in the example. > > b) You seem to use a notation in the tree diagrams that is not defined > in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-06.txt: > > +--rw <global configuration> > > I assume this means something like > > +--rw // global configuration > > but even that does not seem comply to the common tree diagram > notation. Perhaps simply state somewhere in Section 1.2 that > things in <> brackets are placeholders. > [Xufeng]: Added the description in Sec. 1.2. > > Why is section 1.2 called 'Tree Diagrams Prefixes' - should it > not be just "Tree Diagrams"? > [Xufeng]: Yes. Fixed. > > c) I am still unsure what 'wider management interfaces' are, perhaps > replace 'wider' with 'other'. > [Xufeng]: Changed as suggested. Thanks. > > d) Spelling errors: instnace, conatin, the the, cooresponding > [Xufeng]: Fixed. > > /js > >
- Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pim-ya… Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pi… tom p.
- Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review o… Benoit Claise
- Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review o… Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pi… Xufeng Liu
- RE: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review o… Xufeng Liu
- Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… tom p.
- Re: [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… tom p.