Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-07

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 22 August 2019 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
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 0957A12083A for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 05:00:25 -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 MT3u6JtTUyms for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 05:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252F8120820 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 05:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.50]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 944E21AE0981; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:00:20 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:59:58 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20190822.135958.1009278756627043139.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: rwilton@cisco.com
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190822.133449.502914144686905879.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <b15d63e7-fc96-0942-afef-a45c260522af@transpacket.com> <MN2PR11MB4366C1CD8F0567D0C360F1BAB5A50@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20190822.133449.502914144686905879.mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/hHJU2jOq5lBXuk9SOBQABOQ4lRA>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-07
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 12:00:25 -0000

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>; wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Some comments inline.
> 
> 
> "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>; wrote:
> > Hi Vladimir,
> > 
> > Thanks for your detailed review.  Sorry for the slow reply, I've been
> > away.  I'm also about to be away again for a couple of days.
> > 
> > Please see my comments inline ...
> > 
> > I'll also track these issues to closure on
> > https://github.com/netmod-wg/interface-extensions-yang/issues
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Vladimir Vassilev

[...]

> > > 19. ietf-if-common.yang and ietf-if-ethernet-like.yang instead of
> > > ietf-
> > > interfaces-common.yang and ietf-interfaces-ethernet-like.yang.
> > > Setting a shorter naming precedent for future modules augmenting ietf-
> > > interfaces.
> > 
> > I'm not opposed to shorter names, but would be interested in the views
> > of others in the WG.
> 
> I had a similar concern for the modules in the sub-intf-vlan draft (I
> will post my review of that doc later).
> 
> Currently we have:
> 
>   ietf-interfaces-common
>   ietf-interfaces-ethernet-like
>   ietf-if-l3-vlan
>   ietf-flexible-encapsulation
> 
> I think we should have consistency, either:
> 
>   ietf-interfaces-common
>   ietf-interfaces-ethernet-like
>   ietf-interfaces-l3-vlan
>   ietf-interfaces-flexible-encapsulation
> 
> or
> 
>   ietf-if-common
>   ietf-if-ethernet-like
>   ietf-if-l3-vlan
>   ietf-if-flexible-encapsulation


One comment re naming here.

The name "ietf-interfaces-common" seems a bit odd; isn't
"ietf-interfaces" for "common" definitions?

I was going to suggest "ietf-interfaces-extensions", but then I
re-read the description in the module:

      This module contains common definitions for extending the IETF
      interface YANG model (RFC 8343) with common configurable layer 2
      properties.

So perhaps "ietf-interfaces-l2-extensions" would be better?

... but then "forwarding-mode" isn't a l2 property.



/martin