Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-isis-yang-is-is-cfg-29

tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Wed, 02 January 2019 11:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD6D12D4E9; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 03:16:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.196
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RATWARE_MS_HASH=2.148, RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME=2.95, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BhSdHTdx0Ru1; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 03:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr130112.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.13.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3C4212872C; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 03:16:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-btconnect-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=cdSOjYH+HtReoz4PC6CTbHN1K/yyGzqpyE2Bb0sjUyk=; b=eFjpFsNfWgU6wsvvsN7MbkRSFjqO2JU0R9jUiqeQv8kjpuYsjAD1BVULvcmTky+2mSbG5TH4GDvGSD2NI6z804tMJ5tym6IzhbdFcfesaeprb+qpRPhnVPnf9H3OgrqB0gO7IpRUxTybNDUSNMj5dVw3vAU+3biuII8kQYGy3AE=
Received: from AM0PR07MB5506.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.178.23.17) by AM0PR07MB4754.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.135.152.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1495.5; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 11:16:30 +0000
Received: from AM0PR07MB5506.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::30d7:2d62:cf50:fb2a]) by AM0PR07MB5506.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::30d7:2d62:cf50:fb2a%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1495.005; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 11:16:30 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, Ebben Aries <exa@juniper.net>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg.all@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-isis-yang-is-is-cfg-29
Thread-Index: AQHUooycHlP19WSsQ0KaVvaziE5yug==
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 11:16:30 +0000
Message-ID: <009101d4a28c$905b2300$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <154025553381.13801.5009678921928527816@ietfa.amsl.com> <03ff01d48641$8f8d8600$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <19850_1543334259_5BFD6973_19850_302_6_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B7768B5@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <009101d4a135$a59c2780$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: LO2P265CA0304.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:a5::28) To AM0PR07MB5506.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:208:103::17)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ietfc@btconnect.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [86.139.215.184]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM0PR07MB4754; 6:oZrGEsshadKoiVlSwP10TGtwIt7UmGqMbGMxSwX5aPDWNGxyveovKNvIC4BpClzrOXLRjWTdjsW74W/jLX5T0vMmlSSX6q1HxyCq+RnVgAgbYS/ILGfq66zw+dJQkTfGTl8MAjB5Ggfpulc1RVhIQ15ffX6xbzco8s5ma8KjcVgNslk1JKvH5HmvnCKglbMmN4Hd8brJ7x8YRD6UPqK2BjExNsTpCuHncJdJ6hkCUNNrIGNK5PImGnFd44W/Z+H3T7KBMjcc09c50EiiJ0MPG34NCxgjU3rlpqTurp6Cdxam5h8rLxntcV+/LLBXg+EObUWbNaDyLsXF9Hn7SIIp6asCQ/gapwou6bTUB3Q/5MgkJQ2yFDX1wFFq59tQZy1bFQwWGaQ7o0whmb9H6w0MI3c4B4lKa9HbOOxpp7akn03r3HwLkOoRcdF837H6tABvEpe1gyZEwKvtAd63Fw+ABw==; 5:atr6eVvRqckvvw/CuY/mGMBnUjgJylNwa+N351T4ZKC5UJXGaSli47agKtBtCNgSMfuLRSZva/DjHQ7QRBl53+XOzMA5NWdCRn9jgL5NvpIYgImN6etmfQN7aKC+ZMGAjiaVXfmRiHioac6HctUq+ebJeJjOeZDl/5AMTzF7h/kbSkCP2rG2J3Scub0BC0I/hBA+xXnbNTmexoV4DuKPIg==; 7:ltKJ70OSCeM9W9c8Zp+Y77/B9Mq8oWYrWgmvmN72/VV5ty3xhnelc7090KVDRNlKhNiC2xFCU6Fkx7jxDmt5El6x5746eeBYWpsoWR2tj3khZgSaBsrVnwByiHM9nsWWlqp0pgbwTvBS1gpEw8evVg==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0ebb3912-30d0-45fe-a745-08d670a3bee3
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600109)(711020)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR07MB4754;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR07MB4754:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR07MB4754524600FC8719462F1B03A08C0@AM0PR07MB4754.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(3230021)(908002)(999002)(5005026)(6040522)(8220060)(2401047)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3231475)(944501520)(52105112)(3002001)(6055026)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:AM0PR07MB4754; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM0PR07MB4754;
x-forefront-prvs: 0905A6B2C7
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(39860400002)(366004)(396003)(376002)(136003)(13464003)(51444003)(189003)(199004)(71190400001)(4744004)(551544002)(14496001)(106356001)(86152003)(71200400001)(54906003)(93886005)(256004)(14444005)(5024004)(9686003)(6512007)(6306002)(53936002)(6246003)(110136005)(84392002)(2906002)(86362001)(66574012)(4326008)(316002)(1941001)(99286004)(105586002)(7736002)(1556002)(305945005)(44736005)(6436002)(486006)(186003)(8936002)(81156014)(8676002)(81166006)(478600001)(966005)(476003)(6506007)(5660300001)(25786009)(66066001)(53546011)(97736004)(26005)(76176011)(68736007)(2501003)(52116002)(102836004)(3846002)(14454004)(446003)(6486002)(6116002)(33896004)(386003)(229853002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR07MB4754; H:AM0PR07MB5506.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: sNYvY4KoULfZvHRxTQqjAjO7dOafCo5TH/AieWsyM9fTZMcMbarmynHyITCDKm2INakVRYJ8RmS7caXBhgOwdspdzvujvYPo3DCOj2RMb0xvQf7w0W4H0t5dXzKckhGUOJzuDQIy1atUjySqc+m8UeIgPZx+C9E4yY7XDQpwtEzz+Npp9k4dtd9fo3e8OoILcDlmEcUYwGi7AYKHncVqnkutfRV59din3Vf/5X8eGEsvzzL4XyozWWEu6lleLeFhrRibpZCgveYLZIOWAK/Hf92+GP/AjiaD2kQ7QXGYsIPsxUYTWom8cCpX9FzZGTKH
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <69C925E1FBEDCF4FB851AB4CABE71BBE@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0ebb3912-30d0-45fe-a745-08d670a3bee3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Jan 2019 11:16:30.8449 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR07MB4754
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/lYL7aIn1yY-iGNRq3485KUAN5Vc>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-isis-yang-is-is-cfg-29
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 11:16:37 -0000

Here are the rest of my comments on -29 with a slight tweak to the
subject line.  I would regard most of these (but not the first two) as
non-discussable, ie I won't complain if you disagree:-)

RFC1195 is in the YANG module but not the references of the I-D

RFC5029 is in the YANG module but not the references of the I-D

PSNPs, CSNPs
expand on first use - LSP I think ok

        leaf best {           type boolean;
what is true and what false?  I can guess from the English semantics of
the name but would rather not guess.

        leaf non-best-reason {          type string;
suggest a maximum length, perhaps 127 or 255 ( unless you expect
screenshots or packet traces to be attached).  As it stands, you could
validly receive
a length of 18446744073709551615.

You have a mixture of
System-id system-id System id System ID System Id system id system ID
suggest consistency; system-id wfm

You have a mixture of
lsp-id LSPID LSP ID
here, perhaps lsp-id for the names and LSP ID in the text

      case password {        leaf key {           type string;
perhaps better with a minimum length

        leaf i-e {          type boolean;
what is true and what false?  here I am reluctant even to guess

/"Authentication keyto/  "Authentication key to/

"     the authentication key MUST NOT be presented in"
RFC2119 language means that RFC2119 boilerplate should be in the YANG
module (but without the [..] ie the reference must be plain text not an
anchor).


 It is recommended to use an MD5
           hash to present the authentication-key.";
Mmm I think that this may be a red flag to security AD or directorate as
being too vague as well as MD5 too weak; and I think this should be
explicitly called out in Security Considerations.

      list level-db {        key level;        leaf level {
A common convention is for a list of leaf thing to be named things i.e.
      list levels {         key level;        leaf level {

  rpc clear-adjacency {
          "Name of the IS-IS protocol instance whose IS-IS
           information is being queried.
queried or cleared?

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>;
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of
draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-24


> Stephane
>
> A new and different comment.
>
>   grouping neighbor-gmpls-extensions {
>
> has a text reference to RFC5307 which does not appear in the
references
> for the I-D.  However, before adding it, I would like to know why it
is
> a good reference for switching capabilities (which is part of this
> grouping).  I think that the reference for switching capabilities
should
> be RFC7074 (which this I-D does not currently reference and should
IMO).
>
> And that begs the  question, why is switching-capability an
unrestricted
> uint8 when only 12 values are valid and three are deprecated?
>
> So why not use
>
> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types?
>
> I have a number of additional comments on cfg-29 but this is the one
> that may take some discussion.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>;
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for your comments. I will fix them asap.
> Regarding:
> " Line length is within the RFC limit but the effect is to spread many
> of the description clauses over multiple lines with indentation of 56
> characters, not user friendly e.g.
>                                         description
>                                                 "List of max LSP
> bandwidths for different
>                                                  priorities.";
> "
> What's your suggestion on this one ?
>
> Brgds,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 12:11
> To: Ebben Aries; yang-doctors@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg.all@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Tarek
Saad
> (tsaad)
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of
> draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-24
>
> Some quirks in-25
>
> I see lots of YANG reference statements - good - but no mention of
them
> in the I-D references - not so good.  My list is
>
> 5130
> 5305
> 5306
> 5880
> 5881
> 6119
> 6232
> 7794
> 7810
> 7917
> 8405
>
> Also perhaps
> OLD
>     reference "RFC XXXX - YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
>                Forwarding Detection (BFD).Please replace YYYY with
>                                                          published RFC
> number for draft-ietf-bfd-yang.";
>
> NEW
>     reference "RFC YYYY - YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
>                Forwarding Detection (BFD).
>
> -- Note to RFC Editor Please replace YYYY with published RFC
> number for draft-ietf-bfd-yang.";
>
> OLD
>       reference "draft-ietf-bfd-yang-xx.txt:
>                  YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
>                  Detection (BFD)";
> NEW
>     reference "RFC YYYY - YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
>                Forwarding Detection (BFD).
>
> -- Note to RFC Editor Please replace YYYY with published RFC
> number for draft-ietf-bfd-yang.";
>
>
> Line length is within the RFC limit but the effect is to spread many
of
> the description clauses over multiple lines with indentation of 56
> characters, not user friendly
> e.g.
>                                         description
>                                                 "List of max LSP
> bandwidths for different
>                                                  priorities.";
>
>
> Acknowledgements is TBD. I note that the editor list of the YANG
module
> is somewhat longer than the editor list of the I-D.
>
> I note that the augmentation of interfaces seems to have no
conditional
> and so will augment all interfaces. I think that this is a generic
issue
> but do not see it being addressed anywhere.
>
> In a similar vein, you are defining MPLS objects and I am unclear
> whether or not those should be conditional, or part of the MPLS YANG
> modules or both (copying Tarek for this)
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ebben Aries" <exa@juniper.net>;
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 12:45 AM
>
> > Reviewer: Ebben Aries
> > Review result: On the Right Track
> >
> > 1 module in this draft:
> > - ietf-isis@2018-08-09.yang
> >
> > No YANG compiler errors or warnings (from pyang 1.7.5 and yanglint
> 0.16.54)
> >
> > "ietf-isis@2018-08-09" module is compatible with the NMDA
> architecture.
> >
> > Module ietf-isis@2018-08-09.yang:
> > - Both the description and the draft name reference that this module
> is
> >   specific to configuration but contains operational state nodes in
> addition
> >   to RPCs and notifications.  Any wording suggesting this is only
> >   configuration should be changed
> > - Module description must contain most recent copyright notice per
> >
>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.1
> > - Module description reads "common across all of the vendor
> implementations".
> >   I don't think this needs to be called out as such as that is the
> overall
> >   intention of *all* IETF models
> > - This module contains '22' features (and the respective OSPF module
> currently
> >   contains '26').  While it is understood the purpose of these
> features in the
> >   module, take precaution as to complexity for clients if they need
to
> >   understand >= quantity of features per module in use on a
> >   network-element.  We are going to end up w/ feature explosion to
> convey
> >   *all* possible features of each network-element leading to
> divergence back
> >   towards native models at the end of the day.  A large amount of
> these
> >   feature names could be defined within a more global namespace
(e.g.
> nsr) but
> >   this gives us a granular yet cumbersome approach (e.g. feature
> isis:nsr,
> >   ospf:nsr, etc..)
> > - RPC 'clear-adjacency' does not have any input leaf that covers
> clearing a
> >   specific neighbor/adjacency (See comments below as well regarding
> RPC
> >   alignment w/ the OSPF model)
> > - RPC 'clear-adjacency' has an input node of 'interface' however
this
> is just
> >   a string type.  Is there any reason this is not a
> leafref/if:interface-ref
> >   (much like in the OSPF model)
> > - Child nodes within a container or list SHOULD NOT replicate the
> parent
> >   identifier per
> >
>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-4.3.
> 1.
> >
> >   A case in point is the list /afs/af that has a leaf of 'af'
> >       <afs>
> >         <af>
> >           <af>ipv4</af>
> >           <enable>true</enable>
> >         </af>
> >       </afs>
> >
> >   Not only is this replication, but we should likely not abbreviate
> 'afs' if
> >   we are using the expanded 'address-family' in other IETF models
such
> as
> >   ietf-i2rs-rib
> >
> >
> > General comments on the draft + nits:
> > - Since YANG tree diagrams are used, please include an informative
> reference
> >   per
>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.4
> > - Section 1.1 does not need to exist since this would be covered by
> the
> >   reference mentioned above
> > - Reference to NMDA compliance should be contained within Section 1
> (vs.
> >   Section 2) per
> >
>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.5
> > - Section 2: It seems reference should be given to the location of
> where the
> >   ietf-routing module is defined (As well as reference to NMDA RFC
in
> the
> >   above reference)
> > - Section 2.1: "Additional modules may be created this to
support..."
> needs
> >   slight rewording adjustment
> > - Section 3: The RPC operations are named 'clear-adjacency' and
> >   'clear-database' rather w/ reliance off namespacing for
uniqueness.
> This
> >   section refers to 'clear-isis-database' and 'clear-isis-adjacency'
> > - Section 4: Notification name mismatch in this section from actual
> naming
> >   within the module (e.g. 'adjacency-change' should rather be
> >   'adjacency-state-change')
> > - Section 7: Security Considerations will need updating to be
> patterned after
> >   the latest version of the template at
> >   https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines per
> >
>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.7
> > - Section 12: All modules imported within this module MUST be
> referenced
> >   within this section per
> >
>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.9.
> >   There are quite a few missing from this section right now
> > - Appendix A: Some of the XML elements are off in alignment
> > - Appendix A: Examples must be validated.  The example given has the
> following
> >   issues:
> >   - /routing[name='SLI'] and /routing/description are invalid data
> nodes and
> >     do not exist.  I'm not sure why they are in the XML example here
> >   - The example is meant to reference configuration however
> >     /routing/interfaces is a r/o container
> >   - The control-plane-protocol 'type' needs to be qualified - e.g.
> >     <type
> xmlns:isis="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-isis">isis:isis</type>
> >   - The area-address does not validate against the pattern regex and
> must end
> >     with a '.'  e.g.
> >     <area-address>49.0001.0000.</area-address>
> >   - metric-type/value is set to 'wide' which is invalid.  This
should
> rather
> >     be 'wide-only'
> >   - isis/afs/af/af is set to 'ipv4-unicast' which is invalid.  This
> should
> >     rather be 'ipv4' per iana-routing-types
> >   - /interfaces/interface/type must be populated and is invalid.
This
> should
> >     rather be qualified as such:
> >     <type
>
xmlns:ianaift="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type">ianaift:softwar
> eLoopback</type>
> >     <type
>
xmlns:ianaift="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type">ianaift:etherne
> tCsmacd</type>
> >   - /interfaces/interface/link-up-down-trap-enable must have a value
> >     associated as such:
> >     <link-up-down-trap-enable>enabled</link-up-down-trap-enable>
> >   - NP container 'priority' has a must statement checking if an
> interface-type
> >     is set to 'broadcast' however if you take the XML example from
> this
> >     section, it will fail to validate even if <priority> is not
> defined
> >     underneath an interface-type of 'point-to-point'.  It seems to
me
> that
> >     this logic may need to be readjusted or not exist at all
(priority
> can
> >     still be set on implementations on loopback interfaces - which
> would
> >     default to 'broadcast' in the example here).  Could you not
solve
> this
> >     with use of 'when' vs. 'must' as such:
> >
> >           when '../interface-type = "broadcast"' {
> >               description "Priority can only be set for broadcast
> interfaces.";
> >           }
> >
> >
>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-4.18
> ..2.
> >
> >   - /interfaces/interface/ipv4/mtu must contain a valid value (and
> likely not
> >     need to be defined for Loopback0)
> >   - 'isis/mpls-te/ipv4-router-id' is invalid and should rather be
> >     'isis/mpls/te-rid/ipv4-router-id'
> >   - 'isis/afs/af/enabled' is invalid and should rather be
> 'isis/afs/af/enable'
> >   - Examples should use IPv6 addresses where appropriate per
> >
>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.12
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> _________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
deforme
> ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr