Re: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08

[wangzitao <[e-mail]>]

Thank Adrian for these valuable comments, please find my reply inline.

Best Regards!
-Michael

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2017年1月25日 7:38
收件人: 'Ron Bonica'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
主题: RE: [Lime] WGLC: draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-08

Hi,

I read through this document again and think it is ready for publication.

Here are some minor things to ix along the way.

Thanks,
Adrian
===
You might sort out the line lengths.
[Michael]: Yes, I can fix it.

---
Abstract is missing a final period.
[Michael]: Thanks, I will fix it in next version.
---
Some of the references in sections 1 8 and 9 seem to be duplicated.
[Michael]: Yes, I will fix it.
---
The last sentence of section 2 presumably belongs with the first paragraph.
[Michael]: Indeed, it need to be fixed.
---
The text in section 2 that defines the notation used in the trees that are found in this document is useful, but I suspect it of being generic.
(It would be nice if this was in a separate document so that everyone can reference it, but that is not the job of these authors or this WG.)

I did find several parts of the text confusing and I wondered whether:
- you can can drop the statuses that are not used in this document
  (I think there are no deprecated or obsoleted objects)
[Michael]: Yep, the deprecated/obsolete statement is not used. Moving this flag from the section make sense for me.

- add the other flags that are used (I see, "w" although I am surprised
  to find what is effective a write-only object so perhaps that is an
  error?)
[Michael]: Agree.
- give simple examples (because "x" and "-x" may be hard to distinguish)
[Michael]: Agree.
---
In 4 you have
   Under each MA, there can be two or more MEPs (Maintenance Association
   End Points).
But your primary expansion of MEP in section 2.1 is different.
[Michael]: Yes, it need to be fixed.
---
Sections 1 and 2.1 use "RPC" the rest of the document uses "rpc"
[Michael]: Yes, it need to be synchronized. I'd like to fix it.
---
Section 4.4 has
   Please refer to Section 4 for the complete
   data hierarchy
which is a bit odd given that we are in the middle of section 4.
[Michael]: Yes, it seems odd, I think it can be modified to "Please refer to Section 4.5 for the complete
   data hierarchy".  
---
Not asking you to do it, but why after the whole of section 4, why are there no "fragments" in section 4.5?
---
A number of description clauses need to begin with capital letters.
[Michael]:You are right, I will fix it in next version.
---
loss-of-continuity refers to the receiving MEP's configured CC-V reception period.  I cannot find where I can read the value of that.
[Michael]: I'd like to discuss with my coauthor to decide whether we need this attributes
---
Any reason why sometimes

      leaf cc-transmit-interval {
        type Interval;
        description
          "Interval between echo requests";
      }

and sometimes

      leaf interval {
        type Interval;
        description
          "Interval between echo requests";
      }
[Michael]: according to previous discussion, for continuity check, there is a little of difference on same terminology For example:
for mpls-tp, there are transmit-interval and receive-interval, therefore, we defined this attribute as cc-transmit-interval.
---
Why is there a minimum packet-size of 64 octets?
Why can't I send smaller CC and CV packets?
[Michael]: I agree with your concern, especially consider for future technologies, restrict the minimum packet-size as 64 octets seems not good idea.
I would like to discuss with coauthor and may be change it in next version. 
---
Stray text "YANG module of OAM" right at the end of the module?
[Michael]: yes, it need to be fixed.
---
6.2 has MEPID and MEP-ID and MEP ID.
[Michael]: Yes, it need to be synchronized. 
---
6.2 has
   In this document we propose to extend the range to 0 to
   65535.
s/propose to extend/extend/
[Michael]: Agree.
---
6.3 has "MAID" unexpanded.  This is probably just the ID of the MA, but ...
[Michael]: Yes, you are right, I would like to fix it.
Section 7 has
   This section demonstrates the usability of the connection-oriented
   YANG OAM data model to various connection-oriented OAM technologies,
   e.g., TRILL and MPLS-TP.
This should probably be
   This section demonstrates the applicability of the connection-oriented
   YANG OAM data model to TRILL and MPLS-TP.
[Michael]: This section demonstrates the CO model's applicability, it introduce the method of augmenting the CO model to derived technology specific model.
Trill and MPLS-TP are just some examples. 
---
I think the affiliations and emails of the Contributors and Authors need to be double-checked.
[Michael]: Agree.