Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-14.txt

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bo,

Just a quick reminder that you can post a -15 (which I don’t think that I have seen), and then I can approve this.

Regards,
Rob


From: Wubo (lana) <[e-mail]>
Sent: 25 October 2022 08:26
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-14.txt

Hi Rob,

Many thanks for your suggestion. We will submit R-15 to fix this when the I-D submission reopen.

Thanks,
Bo

From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 6:06 PM
To: Wubo (lana) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-14.txt

Hi Bo,

I think that “limit-number” name makes more sense in the context of the other peer leaves around it when it is defined under “mac-addr-limit”, i.e., the “time-interval”, and what action is being taken.

My “no hats” opinion is that I would still go for consistency with the other counters under entry-summary.  E.g., using the same naming convention between the “maximum” and the “active”, and between v4, v6 and mac addresses.  If it helps you could also make the relationship to mac-policies/limit-number clear as part of the description.

But I’ll leave this entirely as the authors decision, this is just a minor non-blocking comment.

Regards,
Rob


From: Wubo (lana) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 21 October 2022 10:41
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-14.txt


Hi Rob,



Thanks for the review and suggestion.



Per the naming of "mac-limit-number", we are considering to be consistent with L2NM definition:



https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9291:

              |     +--rw mac-policies

              |     |  +--rw mac-addr-limit

              |     |  |  +--rw limit-number?    uint16

              |     |  |  +--rw time-interval?   uint32

              |     |  |  +--rw action?          Identityref



Do you think this makes sense?



Thanks,

Bo



-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 5:31 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-14.txt



Hi authors, shepherd,



Thanks for quickly posting a new version of draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm addressing the AD comments during the IESG review.



The changes all look good to me, except that I question one of the changes that were made (in response to one of Eric's comments I think):



     augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node:

       +--rw node-type?       identityref

       +--ro entry-summary

          +--ro ipv4-num

          |  +--ro maximum-routes?        uint32

          |  +--ro total-active-routes?   uint32

          +--ro ipv6-num

          |  +--ro maximum-routes?        uint32

          |  +--ro total-active-routes?   uint32

          +--ro mac-num

             +--ro mac-limit-number?       uint32

             +--ro total-active-mac-num?   uint32



mac-num-limit has been changed from mac-num-limit to max-limit-number, but I was wondering whether you considered trying to make the names for the mac entry limits more consistent with the names of the IP route limits.  E.g.,



     augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node:

       +--rw node-type?       identityref

       +--ro entry-summary

          +--ro ipv4-num

          |  +--ro maximum-routes?        uint32

          |  +--ro total-active-routes?   uint32

          +--ro ipv6-num

          |  +--ro maximum-routes?        uint32

          |  +--ro total-active-routes?   uint32

          +--ro mac-num

             +--ro maximum-mac-entries?       uint32

             +--ro total-active-mac-entries?   uint32



This is a just a suggestion.  Please let me know if you wish to make this change and post an updated draft, or whether you would like me to proceed with approving the -14 version.



Regards,

Rob





> -----Original Message-----

> From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> Sent: 21 October 2022 09:37

> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-

> 14.txt

>

>

> A new version (-14) has been submitted for draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-

> service-pm:

> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-14.txt

>

> Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

>

>

> The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm/

>

> Diff from previous version:

> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-14

>

> IETF Secretariat.

>