[mpls] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang-07: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang-07: 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-mpls-ldp-yang/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document.

I fully support Ben Kaduk's DISCUSS about IPv6 (about why IPv6 is in the
extended section 6.1.2).  I would have balloted a DISCUSS if Ben haven't
balloted before me.

Also concerned about Suresh's question about the "rw ipv4 (or ipv6)" in section
6.2.1. and 6.2.2. and other places. Thank you, though, for the IPv6 example in
Appendix A.

Answers to my COMMENTs below will be welcome,

Regards,

-éric
== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 4 --
Why having the YANG subtrees for IPv4 and IPv6 different order of their
subtrees in ietf-mpls-ldp/mpls-ldp/address-families/ipv[46] ?

-- Section 5.1.2 --
Another difference about IPv4 and IPv6 in the tree: IPv6 has an "enable" leaf
but IPv4 does not. Why is that ?

-- Section 5.2.1.1. --
In the text "this document recommends an operator to pick a routable IPv4
unicast address as an LSR Id", what is meant by "routable" ? Globally routable
? Domain routable ?

Also, it is expected that design recommendations are done in a document about
data model?