Re: [L3sm] New Version Notification for draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt

[David Ball <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Qin.

I checked and I think a few things that we agree previously haven't yet 
been incorporated:

  * In Sn 6.12.3.2, regarding the confusion between the second paragraph
    (begining "In the case of a provider-managed or co-managed
    connection, ...") and the bullet about direction - I think we agreed
    to delete the paragraph (at least, you asked on the list if anyone
    objected and I didn't see any replies).  This was issue 9 in my
    comments on draft-02.
  * The provider address and mask are now optional in the case of DHCP,
    as agreed; however, in the case of static, they are still marked as
    mandatory.  I think the following leaves need to have mandatory
    removed as well (issue 11 from draft-02)
      o l3vpn-service/sites/site/site-network-accesses/site-network-access/ip-connection/ipv4/addresses/provider-address
      o l3vpn-service/sites/site/site-network-accesses/site-network-access/ip-connection/ipv4/addresses/mask
      o l3vpn-service/sites/site/site-network-accesses/site-network-access/ip-connection/ipv6/addresses/provider-address
      o l3vpn-service/sites/site/site-network-accesses/site-network-access/ip-connection/ipv6/addresses/mask
  * In the filters container/choice, we agreed to add 'when' statements
    for each case based on the type, to prevent invalid combination of
    the type and filter lists as in the example I posted.  (Issue 13
    from draft-02).
  * For the address-allocation-type leaves, I saw you removed the
    default (as agreed) but also added 'mandatory true' (which was not
    discussed).  Making these leaves mandatory does not address the
    problem - if anything, it makes it worse.  (Issue 15 from draft-02)

Two new comments:

 1. Under the cloud-access list, the "authorized-sites" and
    "denied-sites" have been added back in, in draft-03.  These were
    previously removed because they duplicate the functionality in the
    'list-flavour' choice.
 2. There are a number of leaves that are marked as mandatory or have
    defaults, which I think should not be - sorry for not raising this
    earlier, actually it was only just pointed out to me by someone else:
     1. l3vpn-service/sites/site/security/encryption/layer - this should
        either be optional, or have a 'when' statement that means it
        only exists when encryption is enabled.  If encryption is
        disabled, there is no need to specify the layer.
     2. l3vpn-service/sites/site/security/encryption/encryption-profile/profile
        - same
     3. l3vpn-service/sites/site/service/qos/qos-profile/qos-profile
        (and same under site-network-accesses) - I'm not sure why this
        choice is mandatory, that means one of the options has to be
        specified for both the site and the site-network-access.  I
        think the intent is that it is optional in both places, so it
        can be specified in one or the other.
     4. l3vpn-service/sites/site/site-network-accesses/site-network-access/service/multicast/multicast-address-family/ipv[46]
        - IPv4 has default true but IPv6 has default false; I think they
        should both be default false.


Thanks,

     David


On 06/09/2017 11:25, Qin Wu wrote:
> We have incorporated additional comments from David in v-(03).
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03
> Thank David, thanks for L3SM design team help complete this.
>
> -Qin
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2017年9月6日 18:18
> 收件人: Qin Wu; Luis Tomotaki; Kenichi Ogaki; Stephane Litkowski
> 主题: New Version Notification for draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Qin Wu and posted to the IETF repository.
>
> Name:		draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis
> Revision:	03
> Title:		YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery
> Document date:	2017-09-06
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		181
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03
>
> Abstract:
>     This document defines a YANG data model that can be used for
>     communication between customers and network operators and to deliver
>     a Layer 3 provider-provisioned VPN service.  This document is limited
>     to BGP PE-based VPNs as described in RFCs 4026, 4110, and 4364.  This
>     model is intended to be instantiated at the management system to
>     deliver the overall service.  It is not a configuration model to be
>     used directly on network elements.  This model provides an abstracted
>     view of the Layer 3 IP VPN service configuration components.  It will
>     be up to the management system to take this model as input and use
>     specific configuration models to configure the different network
>     elements to deliver the service.  How the configuration of network
>     elements is done is out of scope for this document.
>
>     If approved, this document obsoletes RFC 8049.  The changes are a
>     series of small fixes to the YANG module, and some clarifications to
>     the text.
>
>                                                                                    
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>

-- 
David Ball
<[e-mail]>