Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-09.txt

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: 08 November 2021 14:19

Hi Tom,

<tp>
It looks like Figure 15 is out of line with the YANG in both -09 and -10

Figure 15 has 
    leaf translate
  leaf cvlan-id
  leaf mode
where in the YANG it would appear to be
    leaf translate
  leaf cvlan-id
  leaf direction

tom petch



I confirm that Figure 12 is correct.

What is authoritative is the YANG module. We provided the reader with instructions to generate the full tree:

   The full tree diagram of the module can be generated using the
   "pyang" tool [PYANG].

It is much more easier to include the full tree and update it once when the module is touched but having a tree spanning dozens of pages is not usable. This is why we are using subtrees:

   That tree is not included here because it is
   too long (Section 3.3 of [RFC8340]).  Instead, subtrees are provided
   for the reader's convenience.

However, this approach has some cons as we need to check manually many many figures. We are doing our best to maintain up-to-date subtrees ... but bugs happen.

Thank you for helping identifying some of those.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : tom petch <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : lundi 8 novembre 2021 13:51


> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 08 November 2021 07:38
> Hi Adrian, Tom, all,
>
> The comments raised by Tom are now addressed in -10.
>
> <tp A fresh comment on -09 which also applies to -10.
> In Figure 12 I see
>              |           +--rw saii?                      uint32
>              |           +--rw remote-targets* [taii]
>              |           |  +--rw taii         uint32
>              |           |  +--rw peer-addr    inet:ip-address
>  while in Figure 13 I see
>              |           +--rw saii?                      uint32
>              |           +--rw remote-target* [peer-addr taii]
>              |           |  +--rw peer-addr    inet:ip-address
>              |           |  +--rw taii         uint32
>
> i.e. a change of identifier for the list, a change in keys, a change in
> leaf order.  The YANG suggests that Figure 13 is wrong.  More
> fundamentally, YANG tree diagrams are an aid to understanding and
> reviewing especially with a module as big as this.  If they cannot be
> trusted, then what can?
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> Two comments on idnits:
>
> (1) obsolete reference:
>
>   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5143
>      (Obsoleted by RFC 4842)
>
> This is on purpose as we are following what is in:
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/pwe3-
> parameters.xhtml#pwe3-parameters-2.
>
> (2) long lines:
>
> idnits is clean when I run it prior to submission:
>
> ==
>
>   Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>      No issues found here.
> ==
>
> However, the datatracker displays the following after submission:
>
> ==
>   Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>   ** There are 132 instances of too long lines in the document, the
> longest
>      one being 3 characters in excess of 72.
> ==
>
> Will see how to fix this.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> Envoyé : lundi 1 novembre
> > 2021 13:57 À : 'tom petch' <[e-mail]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed
>
 >
> > Useful comments, thanks Tom.
> >
> > Authors, please run idnits and fix issues. Also address Tom's comments.
> >
> > I'll be doing my shepherd review this week. Hopefully you can post a
> > new revision when the gates open next Monday.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 01 November 2021 12:48


> > From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]> on behalf of
> > [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 20 October 2021 09:49
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After discussing with Adrian, we are publishing this version that
> > addresses a recent comment from Julian. For more context, please refer
> > to https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/lxnm/issues/350.
> >
> > <tp>
> > Some stray thoughts
> >
> > some lines are 90 characters long
> >
> > 802.1ah is referenced but not in I-D References 802.3ah ditto 802.1ag
> > Amendment 5 looks like a separate document warranting a separate
> > reference 802.1p is referenced implicitly 802.1Q likewise
> >
> > What is the difference between
> > identity bgp-l2encaps-type
> >   Base BGP L2 encapsulation type
> >      and
> > identity iana-pw-types
> >  Base BGP L2 encapsulation type
> >
> > ccm-priority-type
> > what is high what low?
> >
> > Local Maintenance End Point (MEP)
> > This is not the expansion used by the ITU-T
> >
> > leaf split-horizon-filtering
> > what does true mean?
> >
> > leaf ccm-interval
> > no units
> >
> > leaf ccm-holdtime
> > no units
> >
> > leaf duplicate-ip-detection-interval
> > no units
> >
> > leaf duplicate-ip-detection-interval
> > no units
> >
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : I-D-Announce <[e-mail]> De la part de
> > > internet- [e-mail] Envoyé : mercredi 20 octobre 2021 10:34 À :
> > > [e-mail] Cc : [e-mail] Objet : I-D Action: