Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-yang-21.txt

Hi Alberto and authors

Thank you for refreshing this draft.

Will you be addressing the comments by Joe Clarke on -20 ( Yang doctors)
 in a subsequent version?
For your reference, his comments pasted below.

I am the latest member of YANG Doctors to review this document and the modules
therein.  I looked over chopps' previous review, and it appears most of his
comments have been addressed.  In my own reading, I found inconsistent use of
capitalization and punctuation in descriptions (e.g., some ended in periods,
some did not; most started with a capital letter, some did not); as well as
inconsistent quoting.  All modules would benefit from a `pyang -f yang`
normalization and an editorial pass.

In the ietf-lisp module itself, there are a couple of patterns in there where I
wonder if the regex is what you want exactly.  For example, is it okay if an
eid-id starts with a ':' or a '-'?  For the locator-id, this is a string of
1-64 characters, but the regex hints it could be zero or more of the character
class (a similar example exists with hop-id in address-types).

All modules' initial revisions reference the original LISP RFC but do so with a
URL only vs. a more correct, RFC 6830
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6830/>: ... syntax.  And speaking
of revision,
most of the modules have a revision of 2021-02-22 with the exception of itr and
mapresolver.  This isn't a big deal now, as I assume you'll set all of these
when the draft is finalized.  You should also update all of the copyright years
and copyright text.

As to the two questions asked here, I can see some benefit of breaking out the
IANA parts of address-types into a module that they maintain.  But in its
current form, I don't know that it makes sense to have them maintain it.  As
for geoloc, I do see some overlap, but I am not a LISP expert at all, so I
cannot comment as to whether bringing that whole module in makes sense or would
even work with LISP implementations.  That is, it seems LISP lat and long are
expressed in degrees° minutes'seconds" whereas geoloc does this as a decimal64
from a reference frame.  I do feel that whatever direction is taken, text
explaining why geoloc is not used is useful.

Thanks
Padma and Luigi

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 1:16 PM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-lisp-yang-21.txt is now available. It is a work
> item
> of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) WG of the IETF.
>
>    Title:   LISP YANG Model
>    Authors: Vina Ermagan
>             Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
>             Florin Coras
>             Carl Moberg
>             Reshad Rahman
>             Albert Cabellos-Aparicio
>             Fabio Maino
>    Name:    draft-ietf-lisp-yang-21.txt
>    Pages:   82
>    Dates:   2024-04-15
>
> Abstract:
>
>    This document describes a YANG data model to use with the Locator/ID
>    Separation Protocol (LISP).
>
>    The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management
>    Datastore Architecture (NMDA).
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-yang/
>
> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-yang-21
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-yang-21
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>