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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Qin
See in-line.
>
> Thanks for AD Review. We have addressed your comments in v-(09) 
> together with other comments.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam/
>
> Just to clarify, ‘tp-tools’ grouping defined in  CL model support both 
> proactive and on demand activation.
>
> Grouping defined for common session  statistics on support proactive 
> activation.
>
> We have made this clear in the text.
>
> Also it is intentional to separate retrieval- data from retrieval 
> procedure, the rationale is clarified in the
>
> introduction 1, last paragraph of 
> draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods.
>
> -Qin
>
> *发件人:*Lime [mailto:[e-mail]] *代表 *Benoit Claise
> *发送时间:*2017年8月11日23:11
> *抄送:*[e-mail]; Carl Moberg (camoberg); Alia Atlas
> *主题:*[Lime] AD review: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam
>
> Dear all,
>
> Here is my AD review.
>

>
> -
>
>    To define a forwarding treatment of a test packet, the 'tp-address'
>   needs to be associated with additional parameters, e.g.  DSCP for IP
>    or TC for MPLS.
>
> TC?
> I'm still used to EXP, and had to look TC up.
> Quoting the Internet (so it can't be wrong): Based on RFC5462, the EXP 
> bit has been renamed to Traffic Class field. TC name is not uses widely.
>
The point was not to change TC to EXP, but to write:
DSCP for IP or EXP (renamed to Traffic Classic in RFC5462) for MPLS.
>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types/>
>
- You included:

    The model is augmented to "/nd:networks/nd:network/nd:node" using
    'test-point-locations' defined below. 'tp-tools' grouping defined in
    this model supports both proactive and on-demand activation.


But unless you provide a draft reference, it doesn't make sense.
I had to check the YANG itself to discover the assigned prefix:

      import ietf-network {
           prefix nd;
         }

And then lookup ietf-network

- I see a "typedef route-distinguisher" in 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types/
It's more complete that your leaf route-distinguisher, uint64.
At this point, I believe you should import it.
There are maybe other types you might want to import.


Some new editorial comments:
- indicatesindicate
- format.Each

Regards, Benoit