Re: [Softwires] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04 as Standard Track, closed by 27 June 2018

[[e-mail]]

Hi Sheng /Med,

@Sheng, Thanks for the review.
@Med, Thanks for the quick update.

A couple of other things:

There’s an outstanding comment on model element descriptions given as “…”. Proposed new text:

notification softwire-binding-instance-event description: "The ID of the binding-instance that generated the notification.";

leaf-list modified-entry description "The ID of the the binding-table entry that has been modified.";

------
I just did a quick read through of -05. There are a few small language cleanups that I would like to make:

Section 2.1
s/Provides configuration and monitoring for softwire CE element/Provides configuration and monitoring for the softwire CE element/

s/Provides configuration and monitoring for softwire BR element/Provides configuration and monitoring for the softwire BR element/

Section 2.2
s/be imported here, as needed/be imported, as needed/

ietf-softwire-ce:binding-entry/br-ipv6-addr
description
s/The IPv6 address for of the binding BR./The IPv6 address for the binding BR./

ietf-softwire-br:br-instances/algorithm
description
s/Indicate that the instance supports the MAP-E and MAP-T functions./Indicate that the instance supports the MAP-E and MAP-T functions./

If there’s no objection to the above changes, I’ll update and post later on today.

Cheers,
Ian

> On 27. Jun 2018, at 10:54, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi Sheng,
>  
> Many thanks for the careful review.
>  
> An updated version which integrates your comments is available online:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-yang/?include_text=1 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-yang/?include_text=1>
>  
> See more inline.
>  
> Cheers,
> Med
>  
> De : Softwires [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] De la part de Sheng Jiang
> Envoyé : mercredi 27 juin 2018 06:00
> À : Softwires WG
> Cc : [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Objet : Re: [Softwires] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04 as Standard Track, closed by 27 June 2018
>  
> As the document shepherd, I have reviewed this document.. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. In general, I think this document is in a good shape. The YANG model is well defined and clearly described.
> Here are some minor issues, mostly editorial, although there is 1 error report by the IETF Yang validation tool. It should be easy to be fixed, I believe
>  
> [Med] As you can see in https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/softwire-yang-validation.pdf <https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/softwire-yang-validation.pdf>, the module passes validation. The issue displayed by the tracker is related to [e-mail] <http://www.yangvalidator.com/validator#iana-if-type>.
>  
> There are some minor comments below, most of them are editorial.
>  
> Section 2.1
> It may be better to add the statement names in the description of choice statement:
>   a choice statement 'ce-type' is included for ...
>   a choice statement 'data-plane' is included to ....
>  
> [Med] Fixed.
>  
> "For each module, a choice statement is included for either 'binding' or 'algorithmic'."
> But in Table 1 it is 'algorithm'. Maybe 'algorithmic' should be changed to 'algorithm'.
>  
> [Med] Good catch. Fixed.
>  
>  
> Section 2.2
> The reference to Appendix A.3 should be Appendix A
>  
> [Med] Citing Appendix A.3 is on purpose. It is where NAT and RFC8349 examples are provided.
>  
>  
> Section 3.1
> "for all of the softwire mechanisms listed in Section 1"
> It may be bette to avoid self citation and just list the mechanisms here.
>  
> [Med] OK.
>  
>  
> "Figure 1 describes the tree structure of the CE softwire YANG module"
> It's better to unify the terminology as "Softwire CE YANG Module"
>  
> [Med] OK.
>  
>  
> Section 3.2
> In the paragraph of "softwire-path-mru:":
> It's confusing here whether the MRU is for IPv4 or IPv6..
>  
> [Med] The text indicates “to set the maximum IPv6 softwire packet size”. Furthermore, the description “The path MRU for the softwire (payload + encapsulation
>         overhead)” is also clear about the usage. I don’t think a change is required.
>  
> There are two "br-ipv6-addr" defined. It may be better to add different prefixes or suffixes into the names, but I'm also OK with the current names..
> [Med] We could add map or lw prefixes, but as you know adding prefixes is not helpful (and it even not recommended) as a leaf is identified by its parent. I suggest to leave those unmodified. 
>  
> In the paragraph of "ce-binding-ipv6-addr-change:":
> "binding-ipv6-address" is not defined in the whole document. It should be explained.
>  
> [Med] changed to “binding IPv6 address”
>  
> Section 4.2
> "in Figure 1"
> should be "in Section 3.2"
>  
> [Med] OK.
>  
>  
> "for logging/data retention purposes" -> "for logging or data retention purposes"
> [Med] OK.
>  
> "between 3-tuples, which contains the lwB4's IPv6 address..." -> "between 3-tuples: the lwB4's IPv6 address..."
> [Med] Changed to “3-tuples {lwB4's IPv6 address/prefix, the allocated IPv4 address, restricted port-set}”
>  
>  
> "softwire-num-threshold"
> From the description, I think it may be better to rename it to "softwire-num-max".
> [Med] Makes sense.
>  
> In the paratraph of "invalid-entry, added-entry, modified-entry:":
> "the client" -> "the NETCONF client"
>  
> [Med] OK.
>  
> Appendix A.1
> "lwB4 IPv6 Address:          123"
> What's the "lwB4 IPv6 Address" here?
> [Med] Oops. This should be PSID.
>  
>  
> Appendix A.2
> "for the clients" -> "for the CEs"
> [Med] Done.
>  
>  
> Appendix A.3
> The same "lwB4 IPv6 Address" issue
> And the PSID and PSID offset should be provided in the example.
> [Med] Idem as above. Should s/lwB4 IPv6 Address/PSID.
>  
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Sheng
>  
> From: Softwires [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:44 PM
> To: Softwires WG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Softwires] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04 as Standard Track, closed by 27 June 2018
>  
> This email announces a Softwire Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on:
>  
> Since both chairs of softwire WG are the co-authors of this document. I am now acting as the document shepherd for this draft.
>  
> YANG Modules for IPv4-in-IPv6 Address plus Port Softwires                     
> draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04>
>  
> This draft is intended to become a Standard Track RFC.
>  
> This WGLC will run through the end of the day on Wednesday, June 27, 2018.
>  
> Comments should be sent to the [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> list, although purely
> editorial comments may be sent directly to the author.
>  
> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on
> draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04
>  
> Regards and thanks,
>  
> Sheng Jiang (document shepherd)
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>