Re: [spring] WG LC https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang/

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,

Thank you for your review and comments.

You're correct that SRv6 YANG should be augmenting segment-routing like sr-mpls. This was the agreement between SRv6 and SR-MPLS YANG authors.  Hopefully SRv6 YANG authors will update so in the next revision.

I've uploaded version -17 to address your comments. Detailed answers please see inline with [YQ].

Thanks,
Yingzhen

Other detailed comments please see answer inline.

On 7/7/20, 11:40 PM, "spring on behalf of Dhruv Dhody" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi WG,
    
    I guess it is still 7th in some part of the earth and hoping I am not
    too late :)
    
    I find it weird that the SRv6 Yang
    [https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-raza-spring-srv6-yang-05&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Caf6a379099eb41ab642d08d82309bfec%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637297872081216770&amp;sdata=1fiXJq6aFeKyAVgFN7gSlHRdqINQgoKfCcyIzp5AWe4%3D&amp;reserved=0] does not
    use/augment ietf-segment-routing or ietf-segment-routing-common. A
    sync up between these modules will be useful to understand the overall
    design! A section describing this would also be quite useful.
    
    Few comments -
    
    - Avoid references in Abstract, See
    https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc7322%23section-4.3&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Caf6a379099eb41ab642d08d82309bfec%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637297872081226764&amp;sdata=jD%2FCEGQKug86nyaE1bx2N4i5x4l0gkdy3XNvZ4oD3lI%3D&amp;reserved=0
    
       Similarly, the Abstract should be complete in itself.  It will appear
       in isolation in publication announcements and in the online index of
       RFCs.  Therefore, the Abstract must not contain citations.
    
       You could replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents.
    
       Also, the use of SHOULD in the abstract does not seem right.

[YQ]: fixed abstract.

    - Section 4, you say -
    
       The sr-mpls configuration is split in global configuration and
       interface configuration.
    
       But there is no interface configuration mentioned.
    
       s/lcoal/local/
    
    - Section 5.1.1.1,  you should remove this -
    
       This section is a first proposal on how to use S-bit in Adj-SID to
       create bundles.  Authors would like to trigger discussion based on
       this first proposal.
    
       Please also add references for S-bit and B-Flag etc
 [YQ]: fixed
   
    - Section 8
    
       - The yang model lacks a "reference" statement when importing
    external modules or designing key concepts. They are useful while
    reviewing.
[YQ]: added references

       - Can we rename ipv4-sid and ipv6-sid to ipv4-prefix-sid and
    ipv6-prefix-sid respectively?
[YQ]: not sure whether there are other modules using these groupings. Will check to make sure not breaking other YANG modules importing it.

       - It could be useful to add a description of why ERLD is read-only
    in the YANG.
[YQ]: ERLD?

       - Why is the grouping srgb defined in ietf-segment-routing-common,
    but the feature protocol-srgb is in ietf-segment-routing-mpls?
[YQ]: ietf-segment-routing-common is also used by other modules, while protocol-srgb is specific to sr-mpls.

       - Can the ISIS YANG typedef be used instead of redefining the
    system-id in SR yang.
[YQ]: ISIS-SR YANG will be importing both SR-MPLS and ISIS YANG, so the typedef from ISIS YANG can't be reused since it will cause circular reference.

       - In the grouping sr-controlplane, is it not better to have a
    reference to the policy rather than a string?
    
          +--rw segment-routing
          |  +--rw enabled?    boolean
          |  +--rw bindings
          |     +--rw advertise
          |     |  +--rw policies*   string
          |     +--rw receive?     Boolean

[YQ]: Do you mean the policy in mapping server? Which is a string.
    
       - Target is defined as a string in the yang. You do say that they
    are IPv4/IPv6 prefix in the context of the I-D. I want to confirm that
    the string is the right choice in such a case.
 [YQ]: this is intended.
   
    - Section 11, ietf-segment-routing-mpls is missing from IANA section
   [YQ]: fixed
 
    Thanks!
    Dhruv
    
    
    On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:29 PM James Guichard
    <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >
    > Dear SPRING WG:
    >
    >
    >
    > This email starts a two week WG LC for https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-spring-sr-yang%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Caf6a379099eb41ab642d08d82309bfec%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637297872081226764&amp;sdata=kyQNCDzQZFMpA6ypqu%2Bfg8X6vH4iZPDSqrpHrUNiELU%3D&amp;reserved=0.
    >
    >
    >
    > Substantive comments should be directed to the mailing list no later than July 7th. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    >
    >
    > Jim, Joel & Bruno
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > spring mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspring&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Caf6a379099eb41ab642d08d82309bfec%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637297872081226764&amp;sdata=I0BaAyU%2BI9uvcRW8Suj4%2BN7XPsd%2FbupIkAeg%2F6QknyA%3D&amp;reserved=0
    
    _______________________________________________
    spring mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspring&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Caf6a379099eb41ab642d08d82309bfec%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637297872081226764&amp;sdata=I0BaAyU%2BI9uvcRW8Suj4%2BN7XPsd%2FbupIkAeg%2F6QknyA%3D&amp;reserved=0