Re: [Lsr] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-40: (with COMMENT)

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam, 

Thanks for review. 

On 10/2/19, 6:31 PM, "Adam Roach via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-40: No Objection
    
    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    introductory paragraph, however.)
    
    
    Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    
    
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg/
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    Thanks for the work that went into this model. I have only a handful
    of minor issues I found when reading through the module.
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    >    grouping spf-parameters {
    >      container spf-control {
    >          leaf paths {
    >            if-feature max-ecmp;
    >            type uint16 {
    >              range "1..32";
    >            }
    
    Why is this a uint16 rather than a uint8?

It definitely could be uint8. 
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    >      leaf-list tag {
    >        type uint32;
    >        description
    >          "List of 32-bit tags associated with the IPv4 prefix.";
    >      }
    >      leaf-list tag64 {
    >        type uint64;
    >        description
    >          "List of 32-bit tags associated with the IPv4 prefix.";
    >      }
    
    I think this second description is meant to say "64-bit" rather than "32-bit".

Fixed and will be in the -41 version. 
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    >      leaf reason {
    >        type string {
    >          length "1..255";
    >        }
    >        description
    >          "The system may provide a reason to reject the
    >           adjacency. If the reason is not available,
    >           an empty string will be returned.
    >           The expected format is a single line text.";
    >      }
    
    This description is inconsistent with the definition: it calls for an empty
    string, while the definition requires that at lest one character be present. If
    you want to keep the description as-is, you need to adjust the length to be
    "0..255". Alternately, you might indicate that the field is simply to be
    omitted rather than empty, which appears to be the intention for other
    "reason" fields in this model.

Actually, I think the intension was to return a string consisting solely of the EOL character ('\0'). However, I think not returning a string is a better alternative. 

Thanks
Acee