[Lime] 答复: AD review: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

The warning comes from network instance yang model which is referenced in this draft. To fix it, network instance model draft should be updated.


Sent from HUAWEI AnyOffice
发件人： bclaise
收件人： Qin Wu; [e-mail];
抄送： Carl Moberg (camoberg); Jan Lindblad;
主题： Re: [Lime] AD review: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods
时间： 2017-09-01 19:23:18


Thanks Qin,

See in-line (I removed the addressed points).
Thank for valuable comments, your comments have been addressed in v-(06) with other comments on the list:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods/
Good, but I still see some warnings at http://www.claise.be/IETFYANGPageCompilation.html

-Qin
发件人: Lime [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Benoit Claise
发送时间: 2017年8月11日 23:12
收件人: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
抄送: Carl Moberg (camoberg)
主题: [Lime] AD review: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods

Dear all,

Here is my AD review.

- " This document presents a retrieval method YANG Data model for connectionless OAM protocols" is this right?

   rpc path-discovery {

         description

           "Generates path discovery as per RFC7276<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7276>.";


   rpc continuity-check {

         if-feature coam:continuity-check;

         description

           "Generates continuity-check as per RFC7276<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7276>.";
AFACT, the RPC triggers an "on-demand" (as opposed to proactive draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam, to use the draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam term) OAM mechanism and retrieves the results directly.
" This document presents a retrieval method YANG Data model for connectionless OAM protocols" makes it sound like "polling" the results, which could also be "proactive". You should improve the text
Please let me know how this has been addressed.
It seems that this draft is not only about a retrieval, but also an activation, in case of "on demand". I believe we should make it clear.
If we need a 5 min call (maybe I don't express myself correctly), don't hesitate to let me know.

After hours spent on the two LIME drafts ...
If the continuity-check RPC is really "on-demand", why do we have the session-type-enum as input?

 rpc continuity-check {

    if-feature "coam:continuity-check";

    description

      "Generates continuity-check as per RFC7276<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7276>.";

    input {

      container destination-tp {

        uses coam:tp-address;

        description

          "Destination test point.";

      }

      uses coam:session-type;         <==============

      leaf source-interface {

        type if:interface-ref;

        description

          "Source interface.";

      }
From the other draft (why, btw?)

    grouping session-type {

      description

        "This object indicates the current session

         definition.";

      leaf session-type-enum {

        type enumeration {

          enum "proactive" {

            description

              "The current session is proactive";

          }

          enum "on-demand" {

            description

              "The current session is on-demand.";

          }

        }

        default "on-demand";

        description

          "Session type enum";

      }

    }
This should always be "on-demand", right?


Regards, Benoit