Re: [IPsec] FW: New Version Notification for draft-tran-ipsecme-ikev2-yang-00.txt

Hi Paul,

I leave my co-authors to respond on the YANG aspects.

Regarding the initial-retransmission-timeout I think we meant a time in
second. Do you think we need more options?

BR,
Daniel

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Mar 2016, Daniel Migault wrote:
>
> Subject: [IPsec] FW: New Version Notification for
>>     draft-tran-ipsecme-ikev2-yang-00.txt
>>
>
> Please find our first version for the YANG model for IKEv2. Feel free
>> to post comments. I would be also happy to have face-to-face
>> discussions on the draft - especially from IKEv2 implementers.
>>
>
> Might be good for me to have a talk about it, especially because I'm
> not a yang person. . I'm still a bit confused about the syntax. There is
> code in the document that looks like "ready to use" but also looks like
> "example to use". like:
>
>   description
>        "This YANG module defines the configuration and operational
>         state data for Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) on
>         IETF draft.
>         Copyright (c) 2016 Ericsson AB.
>         All rights reserved.";
>
> All rights reserved? huh? Is that an example? or is this an error?
>
> I'm confused about units too, like:
>
>   leaf initial-retransmission-timeout {
>            type uint32;
>            description
>              "initial retransmission timeout value";
>          }
>
> look weird to me. What's the unit here? uint32 is not a unit, it is
> a number Is this seconds? miliseconds? seconds since 1970? Since 1772?
>
> Some of it looks like just copying IANA registries? So that would be
> outdated quickly. How would that get updated? Should we really put
> chunks of code in RFCs like that?
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>