IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] LDP YANG rev -05 posted [Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang]

"Kamran Raza (skraza)" <skraza@cisco.com> Mon, 22 October 2018 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <skraza@cisco.com>
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 54652127B92; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 09:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 pqDqZA66OzFA; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 09:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18DF71274D0; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 09:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4098; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540226647; x=1541436247; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=eMcsqaipiOiIi4WuarwdPVbRTIiUj6/w9I7BlMREkJI=; b=dv1wdqtDEgO6ZA4/fGeRnXN59IohoHYi/z1s4tZY5+lM1TJeuzG0s1k9 IsTS/4Xu1ohtvlo9/OwcXVM5Vd5Ki6OW51I45srSfcayMfk9IVPcUZQEx NVWSqXcCYZVxpfIpAVGyBqnbIv4pDNyvP8mtk73cVYnRqKYReisJ3PI2v M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAACm/c1b/4wNJK1kGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBggRmfygKg2uIGIwbgWgllxUUgWYLAQEYCwmEQBmEfiE0DQ0BAwEBAgEBAm0cDIU6AQEBAwIBIRE6CwwGAR0BBAImAgQlCxUSBAENBYMhAYF5CA+lVoEuihUFgQuKRxeCAIERJwwThWcBAYEpGAEBJRAjgkkxgiYCnkgJApBwF4FShHODFIUtgSiWNgIRFIEmHTiBVXAVOyoBgkGLGYU+b4EoiGuBHwGBHgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,412,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="459676331"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Oct 2018 16:44:05 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (xch-aln-015.cisco.com [173.36.7.25]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9MGi5Mp027318 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Oct 2018 16:44:05 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-013.cisco.com (173.36.7.23) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (173.36.7.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 11:44:03 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-013.cisco.com ([173.36.7.23]) by XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com ([173.36.7.23]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 11:44:03 -0500
From: "Kamran Raza (skraza)" <skraza@cisco.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "N.Leymann@telekom.de" <N.Leymann@telekom.de>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
CC: "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: LDP YANG rev -05 posted [Re: [mpls] WGLC for draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang]
Thread-Index: AQHUaiZtxpiaYy7IV0e5Pg5X1YXe2g==
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 16:44:03 +0000
Message-ID: <46CC9639-F525-40D8-9087-9B83E7E2494B@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.b.0.180311
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.30]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <F36B7798C63A544D98168EB5D07C59C5@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.25, xch-aln-015.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/xR8-E_hrD-utlVjT1mP0McDhoI8>
Subject: [mpls] LDP YANG rev -05 posted [Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang]
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: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 16:44:10 -0000

Hello WG/Tom,

We have addressed all the WGLC comments from Tom Petch's review and uploaded the rev -05.
Please review and x-check.
 
[ Note: Some of the Tom's comments were generic and equally applicable to other YANG docs/specs -
   We have applied those to the other YANG docs under our control (e.g. mLDP, SRv6) ] 

Thanks Tom for very detailed review and useful comments.
Rgds.
--
Kamran
(On behalf of authors)

On 2018-07-28, 6:32 AM, "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

    The YANG module is deficient in a number of respects, which I have come
    to think of as boiler plate issues, since they are deficient in almost
    all the I-Ds from the Routing Area:-)
    
    - RFC2119 boiler plate lacks reference to RFC8174 and you have lower
    case 'should'
    
    - NMDA is mentioned in the Introduction but it is usually called out in
    the Abstract as well
    
    - no Note to RFC Editor asking them to replace XXXX with the number
    assigned to this RFC
    
    - no Note to RFC Editor asking them to replace the four dates in the
    YANG modules with the date of publication
    
    - no YANG Version statement in the YANG modules
    
    - no mention of the current YANG 1.1 RFC
    
    - no reference statements for the import modules in the YANG modules and
    their RFC are missing from the Normative References of the I-D
    
    - no Informative Reference to the Tree Diagrams RFC8340
    
    - Security Considerations do not conform to rfc6087bis and lack the
    Normative References that that calls for
    
    - you MUST have IANA Considerations else you do not have a YANG module
    
    - the reference for
       [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores]
    is out of date
    
    - RFC6536 has been superseded
    
    - the reference for
    [I-D.ietf-mpls-mldp-yang]
    is out of date
    
    Incidentally, the authors of
    draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-04
    might learn something from this list.
    
    Tom Petch
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <N.Leymann@telekom.de>
    To: <mpls@ietf.org>
    Cc: <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang@ietf.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 4:11 PM
    
    > Dear Working Group,
    >
    > This mail initiates the two week working group last call on
    draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang- which is considered
    > mature and ready for a final working group review.
    >
    > Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version
    yet, and send your comments to
    > the list, not later than 10th of August.
    >
    > There are no IPR disclosures against draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang.
    >
    > This working group last call ends August 10th, 2018.
    >
    > Best regards
    >
    >    Nic
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > mpls mailing list
    > mpls@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email