Re: [mpls] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang-06

Theresa Enghardt <theresa@inet.tu-berlin.de> Sun, 05 April 2020 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <theresa@inet.tu-berlin.de>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B934F3A0CEA; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 08:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 pOp39HU8xwTP; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 08:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.220.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F323A0CE5; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 08:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:646:8301:8b00::520b] (unknown [IPv6:2601:646:8301:8b00::520b]) by mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0D7F29A; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 17:46:58 +0200 (CEST)
To: "Kamran Raza (skraza)" <skraza@cisco.com>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang.all@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang@ietf.org>
References: <156939784126.29030.13643769362107489881@ietfa.amsl.com> <23B171FE-44E0-46B4-A231-471E20CE71B0@cisco.com>
From: Theresa Enghardt <theresa@inet.tu-berlin.de>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=theresa@inet.tu-berlin.de; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBE2ktqYBCAC+3mnQMUTPJEPjKD0EaURx171qWkp4M60Zk97aeG6hSDU2GJAKG/IZ9/w7 NXLZxlfmfK9+y4Fia3aHfdhtdh+hZ/nkzhNHEahpt+coChrcaM/xyLmw7QOfYw6pLEe/snPY bdeiNdg3dsM8SFbLPvzs0REiAS9aVsux7fyDFmmJ4BGqJtjSzAv+l3X508wGeKgbUxT1Ceb5 /6DT5U1cPeSSCsXghHi5pcIfwW0KU00Ug56k3gSIRZ3YlahtBXVyIGOfPMLcvxpVypNejCt3 haLfbK6zI1GFHW39ietsk12DEODM0GiOhlCEx0qL+JxmR+A/IHKkINe5aj8Tl/Ie9TfZABEB AAG0N1RoZXJlc2EgRW5naGFyZHQgKFJlc2VhcmNoKSA8dGhlcmVzYUBpbmV0LnR1LWJlcmxp bi5kZT6JAU8EEwEKADkCGyMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAFiEE7xG3phZ0Plgk 2BDpgz007xx2oPcFAl5FeUUACgkQgz007xx2oPdVTQgAs7LbfSkxmnxM2UjD96o55zNN1sjA oQNHIYeiLQ3Jd8Ju6S21gN6UtAB0otsZ4biCy3RW0JKtP8SzGOK5py0+wW7XxpIwmo+cPO9m a4b0km25VGXhj2VvBvIFT5SGeWweRbqt1eZ5WwMuXjrBLRpy2qoBYX53w81nntXeUJnkCuU4 s7RBjHXfjR3TFkCxZHjoiXHxh4by1Ln7q+bpi1Y8VAU1mSUjLbv/9DLb8qaBGcGGTTxHlw2Y vodADHfwdZVHQkTYSTn4eYvR7P429r2J/4uGR1P3zH4WYXrfD+NZSuq4suXPCKt+mT9fd7do 5sQ5s/ZguxTYj47TtMctHqaUiLkBDQRNpLamAQgAz5qAZBAFqJoFLTYeKHqy149JBtI8Oh4Y wktc1ExLuZDP7KPjLKGJv5ebMHblU579BiSMgj35Bw4H7V5zzgB2DzklLG61ZAjNd6uFEdFN Ltf+2/QqjVqqZjlXfCIlNeq+2U002q1SPzLniX9xm4uHUfL3dZqgOkAWa4fB/X1WmMcXMQX+ Npwv9plEJOLdd1J6/XtwsUmnJnkicDiuyb7G8v4fPDJtc0m2sQIdXSL71VIHbme5w8p8OYN4 1q0vqefBaMp0PnppG/K32Xa9/zW5fTKMcXxcCFZH7Ww2tpnFqZe0zhrL9UjAfQsgXurujk0O vEFhhkQonVRXUYmLTM0EXQARAQABiQE2BBgBCgAgAhsMFiEE7xG3phZ0Plgk2BDpgz007xx2 oPcFAl5FeUYACgkQgz007xx2oPdvPggAjd/uIL6M1zrU5T82TC5VaW7/vnG+Bx5Qmd10SXO/ KcvEHX1SvU8vJ7Y9M1mzJ4P4chdcHyPpo1b5NxLAbq20+zMAhGeLU4Mu+4IuO8qsFxqO36sS H9AzPvoDzPVZp2Nyo8Ok0+6hKQ9McnntTzMw7G6CbZD1u3X+EKQXfzLb852CQBv8ll88v6oX 0ZClPoCo3LPlGxus9GagWv9j1bHDXxvjxTXFps9EcrdXZfLPyC49OoUGv7lXRdz+Di4n53oM fXkPOxgOynex/TCfd4FfhR6BZPjzA51Vfr96cHL+ExIgqHM0ktRf5iVMUKCuNVQxcb7RGntC s49jE0vCEfFMBg==
Message-ID: <732c9b65-bac5-190f-59bd-04aae8509609@inet.tu-berlin.de>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 08:46:56 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <23B171FE-44E0-46B4-A231-471E20CE71B0@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Mq7TWuaMQb2TFa_G7yHWpFFQUao>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang-06
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2020 15:47:09 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for the reply and for addressing my comments.

Best,
Theresa


On 20.03.20 13:32, Kamran Raza (skraza) wrote:
> Hi Theresa,
>
> We somehow missed this email - Our apologies.
> We have updated few rev of drafts since then . The latest one being uploaded later today is rev-09 
> Please see inline [skraza20]
>
> On 2019-09-25, 3:51 AM, "Theresa Enghardt via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>     Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt
>     Review result: Ready with Issues
>     
>     I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>     Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>     by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>     like any other last call comments.
>     
>     For more information, please see the FAQ at
>     
>     <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>     
>     Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang-06
>     Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt
>     Review Date: 2019-09-25
>     IETF LC End Date: 2019-10-04
>     IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>     
>     Summary:
>     
>     This draft is basically ready for publication, but has some minor issues that
>     should be fixed before publication.
>     
>     Major issues: None.
>     
>     Minor issues:
>     
>     Section 1.1:
>     
>     Why is LDP IPv6 grouped in the "extended" category and not in the "base"
>     category, which the draft states to be the "minumum requirements for a typical
>     base LDP deployment" and "suffice for small deployments"? Are typical, small
>     deployments usually IPv4-only, and is this expected to remain true? Please
>     consider briefly explaining this design decision.
> [skraza20]: This was raised few times and we have clarified in emails and some edits in the doc.
>     
>     What does "igp sync" refer to? Is this the same as "igp-synchronization-delay"
>     in the extended model? Please consider expanding this abbreviation and/or
>     providing a reference.
>     
> [skraza20]: In one of prev rev, added a ref to the RFC.
>
>     Section 3:
>     
>     Could you provide references for the "widely deployed non-RFC features", which
>     are part of the extended model, please?
>     
> [skraza20]: This text has been reworked in latest rev.
>
>     "GR session is in recovery state" - What does "GR" refer to?
> [skraza20]: Graceful Restart. Expanding in rev -09.
>     
>     Section 10:
>     
>     In the Security Considerations, it would be great if you could provide some
>     examples of writable/creatable/deletable data nodes which may be considered
>     sensitive or vulnerable, and what negative effects on network operations one
>     could expect if an attacker wrote to them.
> [skraza20]: Done in rev -08.
>     
>
>     Nits/editorial comments:
>     
>     The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet has text resembling RFC
>     2119 boilerplate text. Please consider removing the RFC 2119 boilerplate text.
>     
> [skraza]: Already fixed in rev -07.
>
>     The document contains a few typos and grammar issues.
>     To improve readability, please check for consistency of upper/lower case terms,
>     for the use of definite and indefinite articles, and consider running a
>     spellchecker.
> [skraza20]: ack. Have fixed some known.
>     
>     Some examples:
>     
>     Section 1.1:
>     
>     "The configuration and state items are divided into following two broad
>     categories" --> "The configuration and state items are divided into the
>     following two broad categories"
>     
>     "This is worth higlighting " --> "It is worth highlighting"
>     
>     Section 3:
>     
>     "yang" - should this be all caps?
> [skraza20]: Already fixed.
>     
>     "rpc" - should this be all caps?
> [skraza20]: fixed.
>     
>     "grapically" --> "graphically"
> [skraza20]: Already fixed.
>     
>     Section 5.2.1:
>     
>     "This container falls under global tree" --> "This container falls under the
>     global tree"
>     
> [skraza20]: Fixing.
>
>     "The example of former is interface hello timers, and example of latter is
>     enabling hellos for a given AF under an interface." --> "The example of the
>     former is interface hello timers, and an example of the latter is enabling
>     hellos for a given AF under an interface."
> [skraza20]: Fixing.    
>
>     "A peer is uniquely identified using its LSR Id and hence LSR Id is the key for
>     peer list" [missing punctuation]
> [skraza20]: Already reworked.
>
>     
>     
>