Re: [L3sm] Shepherd review of draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-02.txt

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 21 August 2017 06:45 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA181321C6; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qaU2YY3yFwOP; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4728126B71; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DTV20667; Mon, 21 Aug 2017 06:45:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Mon, 21 Aug 2017 07:44:37 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.219]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:44:33 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "l3sm@ietf.org" <l3sm@ietf.org>, "draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis@ietf.org" <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Shepherd review of draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-02.txt
Thread-Index: AdMZlCevGHsfR02DTY+YH1dzt/v3zAAtGJAA
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 06:44:32 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AAB78A9@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <008901d31994$6466cfb0$2d346f10$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <008901d31994$6466cfb0$2d346f10$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.163]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.599A8173.0069, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.219, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 68f6fa240fafb7a6f49698e9be969dae
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3sm/4cs4OjLpyjvyr6d7qiCMO0LbVR8>
Subject: Re: [L3sm] Shepherd review of draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-02.txt
X-BeenThere: l3sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: L3VPN Service YANG Model discussion group <l3sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l3sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l3sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 06:45:11 -0000

Thank Adrian to provide this valuable shepherd review on this document.
Your proposed changes looks reasonable. We will take care of your comment together
with additional ones from David Ball.

I will send a separate email to address David Ball's comments.

-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] 
发送时间: 2017年8月20日 17:12
收件人: l3sm@ietf.org; draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis@ietf.org
主题: Shepherd review of draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-02.txt

Author, All,

I have done my document shepherd review of this document as part of the publication process. My comments are basically nits and I suggest you fix them at the same time as addressing the latest comments from David Ball. Then I will do the document write-up and send the draft to the AD for publication.

Thanks,
Adrian

===

Many thanks for Section 1.4 that made this review much easier.

---

idnits reports some issues that you should handle:

  ** There are 132 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 70 characters in excess of 72.

  It would be really nice if you fixed these.  If you don't then the RFC
  Editor will introduce line wraps and you might not like how they do it.


  == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses
     in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

  This is a bogus warning, you can ignore it.


  == Line 486 has weird spacing: '...--rw id    str...'
  == Line 488 has weird spacing: '...--rw id    str...'
  == Line 490 has weird spacing: '...--rw id    str...'
  == Line 492 has weird spacing: '...--rw id    str...'
  == Line 566 has weird spacing: '...roup-id    str...'
  == (20 more instances...)

  These are bogus warnings, you can ignore them.


  == Missing Reference: 'VPN2' is mentioned on line 1839, but not defined
  == Missing Reference: 'VPN3' is mentioned on line 1848, but not defined

  This is the figure in 6.5.2.2.  I suggest that you use curved brackets
  as '(VPN2)'


  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6020' is defined on line 8310, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  I think you can simply remove this reference.


  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4026

  You can move this reference to be Informative consistent with the
  reference to RFC 4110.

---

Section 1

OLD
   If approved, this document obsoletes [RFC8049].  The changes are a
   series of small fixes to the YANG module, and some clarifications to
   the text.

   The following changes were made:

   o  First change

   o  ...

   o  Last change
NEW
   If approved, this document obsoletes [RFC8049].  The changes are a
   series of small fixes to the YANG module, and some clarifications to
   the text.  The changes are listed in Section 1.4.
END

---

Section 5

OLD
   The model is
   intended to be used in the way that the network operator's system is
   the server and the customer's system is the client.
NEW
   The model is
   intended to be used in a mode where the network operator's system is
   the server and the customer's system is the client.
END

---

Section 6.3

OLD
   A particular location or a set of locations must be
   associated with each site.
NEW
   Each site is associated with one or more location.
END

---

Section 6.12.2.2

OLD
   o  direction: used to specify the direction which qos profile is
      applied to.  Our proposed model supports "Site-to-WAN" direction,
      "WAN-to-Site"direction and "both" direction.  By default, "both"
      direction is used.
NEW
   o  direction: used to specify the direction to which the qos profile
      is applied.  This model supports three direction settings: 
      "Site-to-WAN", "WAN-to-Site", and "both".  By default, the "both"
      direction value is used.
END

---

Section 11

OLD
   This document adds a new YANG module name in the "YANG Module Names"
   registry [RFC7950]:

           Name: ietf-l3vpn-svc
           Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3vpn-svc
           Prefix: l3vpn-svc
           Reference: RFC 8049
NEW
   IANA has recorded a YANG module name in the "YANG Module Names"
   registry [RFC7950] as follows:

           Name: ietf-l3vpn-svc
           Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3vpn-svc
           Prefix: l3vpn-svc
           Reference: RFC 8049

   IANA is requested to update this registry to reference this document
   on publication as an RFC.
END