IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pcp] PCP YANG Modules (was RE: OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08.txt)

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 07 August 2015 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 390C11B2A78; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 04:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 5jT2U3M_Iy6z; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 04:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias245.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 190D31B2A76; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 04:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.201]) by omfeda09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3AEA5C0D62; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:18:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.18]) by omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1A6DA38404E; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:18:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cba:56d0:a732:ef5a%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:18:08 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nokia.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: PCP YANG Modules (was RE: OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08.txt)
Thread-Index: AdDRAruYuAsCOFR2SBavDt/Gdc895Q==
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:18:08 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933005374B3E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.3]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933005374B3EOPEXCLILMA3corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.8.7.101516
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/tLd-0oS9kBrD-Ajoq0WpoxqzDb0>
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: [pcp] PCP YANG Modules (was RE: OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08.txt)
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:18:14 -0000

Hi Mehmet, all,

(I'm reviving the questions your raised below about PCP/YANG)

FWIW, we submitted an I-D that proposes a set of PCP YANG modules:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-pcp-yang/

Comments and suggestions are more than welcome.

Cheers,
Med

De : Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich) [mailto:mehmet.ersue@nokia.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 8 juillet 2015 14:27
À : ops-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pcp-proxy@tools.ietf.org
Objet : OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08.txt

I reviewed the document "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function" (draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08.txt) as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Intended status: Standards Track
Current IESG state: IESG Evaluation
IANA Review State: IANA OK - No Actions Needed

Summary: The document specifies a new PCP functional element denoted as a PCP Proxy. The PCP Proxy relays PCP requests received from PCP clients to upstream PCP server(s).

There are no nits in the draft.

I don't see any issues from the operations and management pov.

Not being an insider I just wonder which MIB or YANG module is used to configure such a PCP proxy?
Are we prepared for this?

Cheers,
Mehmet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email