Re: [EXT] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-qos-model-00.txt

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chen, Helen" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 2:43 PM

> Hi Tom,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> Regarding s.9, in the case of this draft, it is not the beginning of
IPR issues
> to be resolved.  MITRE has no IPRs to disclose related to this draft.

Helen,

Thanks for getting back to me.  I notice than in other I-D for which
I.Chen is an author, e.g. draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-10, the text is
something like

   Author affiliation with The MITRE Corporation is provided for
   identification purposes only, and is not intended to convey or imply
   MITRE's concurrence with, or support for, the positions, opinions or
   viewpoints expressed.  MITRE has approved this document for Public
   Release, Distribution Unlimited, with Public Release Case Number
   18-3281.

which would not have set so many hares running for me. Is there a reason
for the different text in this qos I-D?

I look forward to the next revision.

Tom Petch

> Regarding the rest of your feedback, my co-authors and I will review
and
> make the necessary changes in the next revision.  We can revisit each
> comment when we publish the next revision.
>
> Thanks,
> Helen
>
> On 10/10/19, 8:17 PM, "Aseem Choudhary (asechoud)"
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>     Need to incorporate/respond back to additional feedback.
>
>     -thanks,
>     Aseem
>
>     On 10/10/19, 12:13 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of tom petch"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>         uh huh; some stray thoughts on this I-D
>
>         s.9
>            MITRE has approved this document for Public Release,
Distribution
>            Unlimited, with Public Release Case Number 19-3027.
>
>         Is this the beginnings of an IPR issue to be resolved? I don't
know.
>
>
>         YANG Model for QoS
>
>         QoS is a very general concept for me, seeeing it more in the
context of
>         system and application performance rather than just network so
I would
>         like something in the title to make it clear that this is
'only'
>         routing;  ditto - especially - the Abstract.  Current RFC have
something
>         in the title that makes this clear.
>
>         s.1
>         (NMDA) [RFC8342 [RFC8342]].
>         looks odd with [[ ]]
>
>         YANG has conditionals which many modellers overuse (IMHO:-)
>         Here I would like more.  You twice have min and max and so
could require
>         that max> or >=  min.  Is it valid to have the one value, ie
min = max,
>         or just a min?
>
>         contact (times seven)
>              contact
>                "WG Web:   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/>
>                 WG List:  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>                 WG Chair: Chris Bowers
>                           <mailto:[e-mail]>
>                 WG Chair: Jeff Tantsura
>                           <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         should not have the WG chair therein- they are too ephemeral
! - just
>         web, list, editors
>
>         There is a mismatch between the editors of the I-D and those
of the YANG
>         modules; is this intended?
>
>         References in the YANG module - I would like more! e.g.
>           identity one-rate-two-color-meter-type {
>                base meter-type;
>                description
>                  "one rate two color meter type";
>              }
>              identity one-rate-tri-color-meter-type { ...
>                 reference  "RFC2697: A Single Rate Three Color
Marker";
>              identity two-rate-tri-color-meter-type { ...
>                reference    "RFC2698: A Two Rate Three Color Marker";
>
>         while some modules lack any such references for the identity;
needs to
>         be consistent
>
>         or, still on Reference,
>
>              grouping protocol-cfg {
>                list protocol-cfg { key "protocol-min protocol-max";
>                  description  "list of ranges of protocol values";
>
>         which I read as being IPv4 only - IPv6 does not have protocol!
Perhaps
>         a name change or explanatory note plus a reference to the IANA
website.
>
>
>                    choice drop-algorithm {
>         has only one case; if intended, an explanatory note would be
useful
>
>
>              augment "/if:interfaces/if:interface" {
>         is unqualified so this will be added to all interfaces in the
box; I am
>         unclear if this is a good idea.
>
>
>         IANA !
>
>         Security !
>
>         s.A.1
>                     "RFC 6020: YANG - A Data Modeling Language ...
>
>         Tom Petch
>
>         ----- Original Message -----
>         From: <[e-mail]>
>         To: <[e-mail]>
>         Cc: <[e-mail]>
>         Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2019 11:26 PM
>         Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-qos-model-00.txt
>
>
>         >
>         > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
Internet-Drafts
>         directories.
>         > This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group
WG of the
>         IETF.
>         >
>         >         Title           : YANG Model for QoS
>         >         Authors         : Aseem Choudhary
>         >                           Mahesh Jethanandani
>         >                           Norm Strahle
>         >                           Ebben Aries
>         >                           Ing-Wher Chen
>         > Filename        : draft-ietf-rtgwg-qos-model-00.txt
>         > Pages           : 89
>         > Date            : 2019-10-07
>         >
>         > Abstract:
>         >    This document describes a YANG model for Quality of
Service (QoS)
>         >    configuration and operational parameters.
>         >
>         >
>         > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>         > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-qos-model/
>         >