Re: [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-12

["tom p." <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Xufeng Liu" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 10:10 PM

> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for the reminder. Just posted a new version
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-yang-17 to update the
references.
>
> Best,

Looks good.

I note that the IESG approved
draft-ietf-pim-yang-16
 on May 16th.

I don't know what the mechanics of this are but doubtless your AD will
know what to do next. I would expect the RFC Editor to have picked up
the issues I commented on but always like to make life easier for them
although in this case I would have done better to have raised it a few
weeks
earlier:-(

Tom Petch

> - Xufeng
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:52 AM, tom p. <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Xufeng
> >
> > You might want to update your references at some point; several of
the
> > I-Ds  referenced in -16 are now RFC e.g.
> >
> > 8340 tree diagram
> > 8342 NMDA
> > 8343 Interfaces 7223bis
> > 8349 Routing Management 8022bis
> >
> > Also, you reference RFC5306 from the YANG module but I cannot see it
in
> > the References of the I-D.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Xufeng Liu" <[e-mail]>
> > To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>;
> > <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
> > <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 6:30 PM
> >
> > > Hi Juergen,
> > >
> > > Thanks for looking at the document and providing further valuable
> > comments.
> > > We have updated the document with https://tools.ietf.org/
> > > html/draft-ietf-pim-yang-16 to address these issues.
> > >
> > > Besides these fixes,  authors and PIM Working Group have further
> > considered
> > > and discussed the type of statistic counters in the model. We have
> > decided
> > > to used 64-bit type instead of 32-bit type:
> > >
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/ti58tMl9ppt7r19DxN8tTAn8n4w
> > >
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Pifg3ABQVgvsFWLTIsI9yLR6RXA
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > - Xufeng
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> > > [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have checked version -15 today. The document has improved
quite a
> > > > bit. Thanks for taking my comments into account. Section 2.5 is
much
> > > > clearer now and I believe the new MIB mapping section is
helpful.
> > > > Thanks also for expanding the security considerations section
and
> > > > adding the example in the Appendix.
> > > >
> > > > Below are some questions that came up during my review of -15:
> > > >
> > > > a) I did not validate the example in Appendix A using tools but
I
> > > >    wonder whether
> > > >
> > > >                      "pim-sm:sm": [null]
> > > >
> > > >    is really correct. Should this not be
> > > >
> > > >                      "ietf-pim-sm:sm": [null]
> > > >
> > > >    in JSON? There are multiple occurances of this. I think the
'sm'
> > > >    node you refer to here is a container - so why would it be
> > [null]?
> > > >
> > > [Xufeng]: Fixed.
> > >
> > >
> > > >    I also wonder whether this is correct:
> > > >
> > > >                      "source-address": "ietf-routing-types:*",
> > > >
> > > >    RFC 7951 seems to indicate that this should simply be "*" and
not
> > > >    "ietf-routing-types:*". So again, has the example been
validated?
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Xufeng]: Fixed. Also fixed the validation tool to correct other
> > errors in
> > > the example.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > b) You seem to use a notation in the tree diagrams that is not
> > defined
> > > >    in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-06.txt:
> > > >
> > > >           +--rw <global configuration>
> > > >
> > > >    I assume this means something like
> > > >
> > > >           +--rw // global configuration
> > > >
> > > >    but even that does not seem comply to the common tree diagram
> > > >    notation.  Perhaps simply state somewhere in Section 1.2 that
> > > >    things in <> brackets are placeholders.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Xufeng]: Added the description in Sec. 1.2.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >    Why is section 1.2 called 'Tree Diagrams Prefixes' - should
it
> > > >    not be just "Tree Diagrams"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Xufeng]: Yes. Fixed.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > c) I am still unsure what 'wider management interfaces' are,
perhaps
> > > >    replace 'wider' with 'other'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Xufeng]: Changed as suggested. Thanks.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > d) Spelling errors: instnace, conatin, the the, cooresponding
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Xufeng]: Fixed.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > /js
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>