RE: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03

Italo and all,

G.808 has a sentence about the priority in clause 3.2.8.10 as follows:

"For the case where an APS protocol is in use, an SF on the protection transport entity (over which the APS signal is routed) has priority over the forced switch."

Therefore, G.808 can be used for "signal-fail-of-protection."

For "failure-of-protocol," G.8031, G.8131 and G.873.1 should be referenced.

Best regards,

Jeong-dong

________________________________
보낸 사람 : "Italo Busi" <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
보낸 날짜 : 2019-02-08 00:25:04 ( +09:00 )
받는 사람 : tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, Tarek Saad (tsaad) <tsaad@cisco.com>, Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com>
참조 : yang-doctors@ietf.org <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org <ietf@ietf.org>, teas@ietf.org <teas@ietf.org>
제목 : Re: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03

Hi Tom,

Regarding your comment:

"I was unclear about my comment on G808; having the reference is find but I would prefer G.808; I note that Deborah's e-mail used G.808 even when referring to the 'G808' in the I-D so I think G.808 is to be preferred."

The draft references G.808 whenever it is possible

However, there are a couple of items which are common across multiple technologies but missing in G.808:

- signal-fail-of-protection which has higher priority than the FS command

- failure-of-protocol

In this case, the set of technology-specific Recommendations (G.8031, G.8131 and G.873.1) has been referenced instead of G.808

@Tarek: I have just noted the following nit in G.873.1 reference which can be easily fixed when you publish the next draft update:

OLD

[G.873.1] "G.8131 : Linear protection switching for MPLS transport

profile", July 2014,

NEW

[G.873.1] "G.873.1 : Optical transport network (OTN):

Linear protection", October 2017,

Italo

-----Original Message-----

From: tom petch [mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com]

Sent: giovedì 7 febbraio 2019 12:42

To: Tarek Saad (tsaad) ; Jan Lindblad

Cc: yang-doctors@ietf.org; draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org

Subject: Re: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)"

Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:11 PM

> Thanks, Tom. Please see inline below.

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: tom petch

> Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 9:47 AM

> Tarek

>

> Getting there .

>

> You will need to have a reference to the new I-D references in the

body

> of the I-D else you will get unused references. One way to do

this is

> to have a Section 4.1 This module references [RFC3272]. [.... I

have

> not gone through and seen how many this applies to but imagine it

is

> most of them.

> [TS]: unfortunate that the tool will flag those as warning as the I-D

YANG module clearly references them.. I am wondering if there is a chance or a plan to enhance the IETF idnit tool to parse the YANG module for references and silence such warnings?

>

Well no, that would be wrong.

A YANG module needs references, for import statements and to tell the user where to go for more information on the objects, their use and so on.

A YANG module must be plain text so cannot contain the usual HTML/XML style anchors that an I-D/RFC has.

Documents referenced from within an RFC must appear in the References of that RFC.

Hence

- anything referenced in the YANG module must be in the References of the RFC

- anything referenced in the YANG module must have a HTML/XML style reference somewhere in the RFC outside the YANG module.

Where such references do not crop up in the existing text of the memo outside the YANG module, then the practice is to add a Section X.1 before the YANG module saying words to the effect that this YANG module imports from [. and references [....

So the tool wants enhancing to generate more warnings, not less, when the contents of a a YANG reference clause do not appear in the Reference section of the I-D.

HTH

I was unclear about my comment on G808; having the reference is find but I would prefer G.808; I note that Deborah's e-mail used G.808 even when referring to the 'G808' in the I-D so I think G.808 is to be preferred.

Tom Petch

> Also you have G.8031 but G808. Not wrong, but...

> [TS]: G.8031 is already listed in references. G808 is still relevant.

I've moved both to informative references as per other recommendations.

>

> import ietf-routing-types { prefix "rt-types";

> now has the right RFC but the wrong title; should be

> Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area

>

> [TS]: thank you. I'll take care of this one in the next update.

>

> Regards,

> Tarek

>

>

> Tom Petch

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)"

> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:10 PM

>

> > Hi Tom,

> >

> > Thank again for your review comments below. We've uploaded

version

> 04/-05 which attempts to address these comments.

> > See inline [TS] for resolution.

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: tom petch

> > Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 12:13 PM

> > To: Jan Lindblad , Tarek Saad

> > Cc: "yang-doctors@ietf.org" ,

> "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@ietf.org"

> , "ietf@ietf.org"

> , "teas@ietf.org"

> > Subject: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of

> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03

> >

> > Tarek

> >

> > The YANG modules have lots of references - good - but they

are not

> in

> > the I-D references - not good.

> >

> > My list is

> >

> > 3272

> > 4202

> > 4328

> > 4657

> > 5817

> > 6004

> > 6205

> > 6511

> > 7139

> > 7308

> > 7551

> > 7571

> > 7579

> > 7951

> > G.808

> > G.8031

> > G.8131

> > G.873.1

> >

> > [TS]: thanks. I've added the missing references and they should

show

> in the I-D references now.

> >

> > s.3.1 I would find more usable if the types were in an order

I

> could

> > recognise, such as alphabetical

> >

> > [TS]: OK, I tried an attempt to sort the typedefs

alphabetically.

> >

> > import ietf-routing-types { prefix "rt-types";

> > reference "RFC6991: Common YANG Data Types";

> > perhaps RFC8294 is intended

> >

> > [TS]: corrected to RFC8294

> >

> > " defined in ietf-network.yang, to help user to understand

""

> > might benefit from a reference - is this

> > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo?

> >

> > [TS]: added reference RFC8345.

> >

> > /"Then index of the label/ "The index of the label /

> >

> > [TS]: fixed typo.

> >

> > container tiebreakers {

> > description

> > "The list of tiebreaker criterion to apply

> > on an equally favored set of paths to pick

best";

> > list tiebreaker {

> > description

> > "The list of tiebreaker criterion to apply

> > on an equally favored set of paths to pick

best";

> > One description is perhaps enough

> >

> > [TS]: removed/updated redundant description.

> >

> > uses path-objective-function_config;

> > using _ is not wrong but is discouraged, mixing _ with - in

a

> label more

> > so

> >

> > [TS]: OK, we have moved away from using "_" in the naming.

> >

> > /This document registers a YANG module/

> > This document registers two YANG modules/

> >

> > [TS]: fixed typo.

> >

> > name: ietf-te-types namespace:

> urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-

> > types prefix: ietf-te-types reference: RFC3209

> > name: ietf-te-packet-types namespace:

> > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types prefix:

> ietf-te-

> > packet-types reference: RFC3209

> >

> > Perhaps /3209/XXXX/

> >

> > [TS]: fixed.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Tarek

> >

> > Tom Petch

> >

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: "Jan Lindblad"

> > To: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)"

> > Cc: ;

> > ;

;

> >

> > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:10 AM

> > Subject: Re: [Teas] Yangdoctors early review of

> > draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03 (was -01)

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

_______________________________________________

Teas mailing list

Teas@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas