Return-Path: X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF8D1201E0 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 01:30:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 qH4X0J1zNWGv for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 01:30:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738081201AA for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 01:30:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.41]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E95791AE018B; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:30:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 10:30:00 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20191106.103000.1684042408553294685.mbj@tail-f.com> To: rwilton@cisco.com Cc: netmod@ietf.org From: Martin Bjorklund X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; boundary="--Next_Part(Wed_Nov__6_10_30_00_2019_074)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [netmod] Fw: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-05 X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: NETMOD WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 09:30:33 -0000 ----Next_Part(Wed_Nov__6_10_30_00_2019_074)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Rob, You haven't replied to my WGLC email below, and it seems the issues I brought up are not fixed in -06. Did you miss this email? /martin ----Next_Part(Wed_Nov__6_10_30_00_2019_074)-- Content-Type: Message/Rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on metgos.tail-f.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Original-To: mbj@tail-f.com Delivered-To: mbj@tail-f.com Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [4.31.198.44]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80241AE0981; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:15:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A49C120C4C; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:15:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1566504906; bh=CCK7qyU4TrJ3XajABvf2Y8IGmRawJ9wbVZoskO7sD54=; h=Date:To:From:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=SCO20wNs3L+UL3RNx2kyFeJ69xlqdqgMAnhIM5X4CvdVTRe4qBX9DEkjaaVqplOMF kwG/n23PgrP3rxUOCvw02o9rl6YbKtFmL3ZUc3nZr/TIBXMW9RMOK6Qzj+Ie1CdiKD z0Ua10SkgfyuM8V/SmxzO7DiHajoVTcME2E/O5ow= X-Mailbox-Line: From netmod-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 22 13:15:03 2019 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6FBD120C1C; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:15:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1566504902; bh=CCK7qyU4TrJ3XajABvf2Y8IGmRawJ9wbVZoskO7sD54=; h=Date:To:From:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=Wn0k9JS6GFCj1lKz6ZffN7tr69NCEzGeucA3wdREp21Ld8nYAezvU9JRjaqxIfNIg VdpxbT+CrqZZWBPGXqEyJOXSbG/3Dkx24NcWVmSV5DKuNli0Qvi4FQnVEXbSuwJpM8 /MnCELtgzM5N+lRknBlKurCw1/F7k6rcTfn4+vTI= X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB6D4120889 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:14:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.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 slYPGzfC3NYL for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB8812011B for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (h-46-233.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [46.59.46.233]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98F4E1AE0981 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:14:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:14:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <20190822.221453.1052536475937856222.mbj@tail-f.com> To: netmod@ietf.org From: Martin Bjorklund In-Reply-To: <0100016bd93be4a2-a22ba545-c022-44d6-9188-1b51ff1effe0-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <0100016bd93be4a2-a22ba545-c022-44d6-9188-1b51ff1effe0-000000@email.amazonses.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-05 X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: NETMOD WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: netmod-bounces@ietf.org Sender: "netmod" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 int cnt prob spamicity histogram 0.00 150 0.023860 0.021745 ################################################ 0.10 14 0.110273 0.030914 ##### 0.20 0 0.000000 0.030914 0.30 0 0.000000 0.030914 0.40 0 0.000000 0.030914 0.50 0 0.000000 0.030914 0.60 0 0.000000 0.030914 0.70 0 0.000000 0.030914 0.80 0 0.000000 0.030914 0.90 1 0.991605 0.056310 # Hi, Here is my (late) review of draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-05. o 1 The YANG module names are not correct; they are listed as: if-l3-vlan.yang - Defines the model for basic classification of VLAN tagged traffic to L3 transport services flexible-encapsulation.yang - Defines the model for flexible classification of Ethernet/VLAN traffic to L2 transport services Should be "ietf-if-l3-vlan" and "ietf-flexible-encapsulation". Or "ietf-if-l3-vlan" and "ietf-if-flexible-encapsulation". But I also wonder if these names should somehow be changed. What is a "l3-vlan"? And "flexible-encapsulation" sound a bit too generic. o 1.1 The text says: Sub-interface: A sub-interface is a small augmentation of a regular interface in the standard YANG module for Interface Management that represents a subset of the traffic handled by its parent interface. I think the augmentation is the YANG-realization of a sub-interface, but it is not what a sub-interface is. Also, this definition is mis-leading; it doesn't mention that a sub-interface has its own interface type and is represented as one separate entry in the interface list. I think it is better to import this term from draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang (section 3.6) o 3 The text says: The L3 Interface VLAN model provides appropriate leaves for termination of an 802.1Q VLAN tagged segment to a sub-interface based L3 service. There is a comment in the YANG model that says the same thing. But the YANG model itself augments not only to sub-interface-based interface, but also to ethernet-like interfaces. o YANG modules Both modules lack the IETF Trust Copyright statement. We don't list WG Chairs anymore. The revision statements should be on the form: "RFC XXXX: " Many descriptions are full sentences w/o the ending ".". The modules should be indented properly; a starting point can be pyang -f yang --yang-line-length 69 o ietf-if-l3-vlan There is a comment: /* * Matches a single VLAN Id, or a pair of VLAN Ids to classify * traffic into an L3 service. */ This should be moved into a description clause. o ietf-if-l3-vlan / container dot1q-vlan The must statement has: count(../../if-cmn:forwarding-mode) = 0 This can be changed to not(../../if-cmn:forwarding-mode) which is more direct imo. The must statement's description statement seems to be a copy-and-paste error. o ietf-if-l3-vlan / container dot1q-vlan The descriptions talk about "matching frames" and "classifying traffic", but it is not described anywhere how the matching and classifying is used. (also applies to ietf-flexible-encapsulation) o ietf-if-l3-vlan / outer-tag / second-tag These names are a bit inconsistent. The description describes them as "outermost tag" and "second outermost tag". Perhaps use these names instead? (same names are found in ietf-flexible-encapsulation) o ietf-flexible-encapsulation / all features The features are described as: "This feature indicates whether the network element supports specifying flexible rewrite operations"; Should this be s/whether/that ? o ietf-flexible-encapsulation There is some descriptive text in comments that should be moved to description statements. o ietf-flexible-encapsulation The descriptions for pop/push are a bit terse. It seems to assume that readers already know what this (from somewhere) is so it doesn't need to be described. If this is intended, perhaps add a reference to where this is described. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod ----Next_Part(Wed_Nov__6_10_30_00_2019_074)----