[Rtg-yang-coord] Some received comments on draft-liu-rtgwg-ipipv4-tunnel-yang-00

Mandy Liu <mandy.liu@ericsson.com> Tue, 07 July 2015 09:00 UTC

From: Mandy Liu <mandy.liu@ericsson.com>
To: "Zhengguangying " <IMCEAMAILTO-zhengguangying+40huawei+2Ecom@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: Some received comments on draft-liu-rtgwg-ipipv4-tunnel-yang-00
Thread-Index: AdC4kzs6vi1H7eQ3Rp2WgvSMizGuPg==
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:00:10 +0000
Message-ID: <D970584466921040BD10823F192C30B9382DB725@ESGSCMB103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_D970584466921040BD10823F192C30B9382DB725ESGSCMB103erics_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/XZoFi_7KG16MfbQ6R58N7hoMIRo>
Cc: "rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, Samuel Chen <samuel.chen@ericsson.com>, "Liubing \(Leo\)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>, Yangang <yangang@huawei.com>, =?utf-8?B?w4Fkw6FtIEbDtmxkZXM=?= <adam.foldes@ericsson.com>, Kai Lin <kai.lin@ericsson.com>, lizhenbin 00147097 <l00147097@notesmail.huawei.com.cn>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu@ericsson.com>
Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] Some received comments on draft-liu-rtgwg-ipipv4-tunnel-yang-00
Precedence: list

Hi  Walker,

For 1, the reason why I define different types of tunnel in different lists because I would like to make them more loose couple, and more easier to be managed. Could you elaborate the single list idea by an example? I want to have a better understanding on it.

For 2,  the empty type represents a leaf that does not have any value, it conveys information by its presence or absence. It won’t impact the get-config. If is exists, when NETCONF client executes the get-config, it can be retrieved and shown. If it doesn’t exist, when NETCONF client executes the get-config it won’t be retrieved and shown.

Thanks,
Mandy

From: Zhengguangying [mailto:zhengguangying@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:24 AM
To: Mandy Liu; Xufeng Liu
Cc: lizhenbin 00147097; Yangang; Liubing (Leo)


Hi Mandy,

     After review your draft of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-rtgwg-ipipv4-tunnel-yang-00?, I have come comments, please check and share your opinion.

1.For different type of tunnels, it should be define as separated  list or just define single list but use “choice ” to define the different “peer-end-point”?
I think it’s better to define as single list with one choice for “peer-end-point”,  by this way, we can extend other type of tunnel with new choice case .
2.for the following two attributes, if we just define the type as empty, how to presents the attributes when use Netconf get-config ?

leaf clear-df {
         type empty;
         description
           "Clears the IP header Don't Fragment (DF) flag
           in all packets that are transmitted on a tunnel.";
       }
       leaf shutdown {
         type empty;
         description
           "Disable/enable the tunnel.";

Regards
Walker
________________________________
路在脚下，Walker
[Company_logo]业务支撑部 Business Support Dept
地址：南京市雨花区软件大道101号 邮编：210012
Huawei Nanjing R&D Center, 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District, Nanjing, Jiangsu,
P.R.China. 210012
http://www.huawei.com

Attachment: image001.jpg

[Rtg-yang-coord] Some received comments on draft-… Mandy Liu

[Rtg-yang-coord] Some received comments on draft-liu-rtgwg-ipipv4-tunnel-yang-00

Attachment: image001.jpg