Re: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the comments.

Please see some comments inline.

Regards,
Aseem

On 12/4/18, 3:09 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of tom petch" <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:

    Viewed as a YANG module, there are a number of defects in this I-D.  I
    think that the flavour is well illustrated by:

    - s.5 This document defines five YANG modules
    The Table of Contents lists seven

    Copyright statements are all 2014.

    revision date of  s.6.1  is 2016-03-03

[AC] I thought it is for last modified date.

    yang-version is a mixture of 1 and 1.1

[AC] I am not sure it needs to be all 1 or 1.1

    IANA gets no mention, not even a TBD.

    No mention of NMDA

    The modules are devoid of any YANG reference statements, either for
    import or for description.

    No reference for Tree Diagrams.

    No current reference for YANG itself or Interface Management

[AC] I see below three YANG references. Am I missing something?

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

   [RFC6991]  Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
              RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.

   [RFC7223]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
              Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.

    The (unanswered) technical question is why have so many modules; I am a
    fan of separate modules for YANG types and YANG identities, since I see
    them as having a different evolution, but that is not done here; rather,
    the functionality is broken up, leading to more YANG prefixes, modules
    that are more complex. Why?

[AC] These modules are basic building blocks for a QOS model. The functionality is logically broken into different modules.
         YANG types and identities defined are for the specific module. Not sure what you find complex here than it needs to be.

    Tom Petch

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jeff Tantsura" <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
    To: "RTGWG" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
    Cc: "Routing WG" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
    Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2018 2:30 AM
    Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07

    > Dear RTGWG,
    >
    > The authors have requested RTGWG to adopt
    draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model as the working group document.
    > The draft has received support during IETF101 meeting, authors have
    addressed all the comments received.
    >
    > Please indicate support or no-support by December 15, 2018.
    >
    > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
    to this
    > email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
    > The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document
    will not
    > advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each
    > author and each individual that has contributed to the document..
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Jeff & Chris
    >

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------

    > _______________________________________________
    > rtgwg mailing list
    > rtgwg@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
    >

    _______________________________________________
    rtgwg mailing list
    rtgwg@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg