Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-09

"Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com> Thu, 01 December 2022 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <lana.wubo@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A14C13A064; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 19:44:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tEIXkzsiSLzq; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 19:44:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67BC4C13A05F; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 19:44:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frapeml100003.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4NN2133Mh4z67L8m; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:41:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemi500014.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.232) by frapeml100003.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 04:43:56 +0100
Received: from kwepemi500014.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.232]) by kwepemi500014.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.232]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.031; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:43:54 +0800
From: "Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com>
To: Jean Quilbeuf <jean.quilbeuf@huawei.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-09
Thread-Index: AQHZAyVhhYam6ox5rk23gAdTtq9w+q5YZ5CA
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2022 03:43:54 +0000
Message-ID: <cec2c2e6b82e432c83f721a112c57824@huawei.com>
References: <166904369359.62390.8340929694339676488@ietfa.amsl.com> <1d749265aa714f50a94eed1023b3548a@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d749265aa714f50a94eed1023b3548a@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.98.73]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/PATc5Qyf16nO-eiItH1PEwTTy9s>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-09
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2022 03:44:06 -0000

Hi Jean,

Thanks for addressing my comments. I am fine with the updates.

Regards,
Bo

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Quilbeuf 
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 8:32 PM
To: Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@huawei.com>; ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-09

Hi Bo,
Thanks for your comments. Please find our answers inline.

The full diff is here:  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10 

Best,
Jean


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bo Wu via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> Sent: Monday 21 November 2022 15:15
> To: ops-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang.all@ietf.org; 
> last-call@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Opsdir last call review of 
> draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-
> 09
> 
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 1.It would be better to add some text to explain why the agent list is defined.
> Introduction says the module should be supported by an agent.
> 
Added the collector export use case:
   " The module is also intended to be exported by the SAIN collector which aggregates the output of several SAIN agents to provide the global assurance graph.
        In that case, only the telemetry export use case is considered."

> 2. In section 3.2 and 3.4
> The "subservice" list contains all the subservice instances currently
>    configured on the server.
> "server" is not defined in the document. Is it referring "SAIN agent"?

Changed to:
   "The "subservice" list contains all the subservice instances currently known by the server (i.e. SAIN agent or SAIN collector)."

> 3. Appendix C Example of YANG instances Paragraph 1 s/examples/example 
> since there is only one example.

Removed the plural, thanks.