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

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 06:35 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A28B3A098D; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 23:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XMUoqTwH4jCI; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 23:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D8183A0A20; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 23:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id e64so40909056iof.12; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 23:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=a4Sn4SSjM0IXbM4f+3uyKFVQDj11r/pDAFmCVucMXIg=; b=JCK2RwosLTusiSnZ+zXLL9qAUTTjlPqgkWj5Kvc6nJu6daG2ASu9SmJWX9PCM/424z EpIGgQZ+4gREaNHR8cT7jn57If5WDl11WRRx3V2s4dvyql6yi4Gd4nOybPA4f3qkUWYR qnXsHb6u6fX5wj5npMKqN5trWwfCZIQWVyk7t5iKLgWucEoC7wQr7rB8VT1YBTW5+l1V g3uqCF965pYLSZJOn5Rk2HrIMuOYDmg9Pb2jJXzDWeglKOHaLZKU6BlKfUFN4hwnG3ce xROIqNjL45fKSu0NF2TOmVebuuwvrGgCbFpJXcxG1MrDRT9I6s2ykKFfE4cUq9HlV71l f3tQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=a4Sn4SSjM0IXbM4f+3uyKFVQDj11r/pDAFmCVucMXIg=; b=aWgkeHtN05HP0W9ixNgB072KzNBkDLI5ibXN90OMs7UMYExfL964AcbCsAS1ds9VBU MPXJ8EuKo62P1ZLdgajQ2Ryeq9KAWkVWhTd8eEXIYF6ayl3YqrhAWpxuSJjNWBmwQ1cp g0deTV4/d2L0XAuxiEgtl2cPCePnTYV6XOU+TznJTGW2goJFy27YOZaAHTVi3Z7enbLR K0VVXXL/0R7jJOaKGO/muj2IIBlLv6MvHbRyVoVc+Q5uiENUIft9YPF06h9OqXhkcMhB SLZR8XLQeruf1eCmC/K3h4uyWishbGWUPO4rPd/V6vHmK873v+iS3JFc5kmsO+HMpt2q bxCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533n95Ve/XhgPJx1rSkcL8jU1dTtRnaG12H8sHQmNQaPVb5tdPO9 d5Fb38a5uDwINgwdo9szPZ4x+b0R9pOuZoa5TVc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/2fxITbjDQK6snkAaWxXn/6xlpHq1hN5+Daf3cI62UP8qlNeF8LwQSXZwP2l8ei1fKXSq1P1zSFacmMU7wLo=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:69d3:: with SMTP id e202mr62094739jac.15.1594190136295; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 23:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM6PR13MB3066AF7A192440EBA63E11DBD2940@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR13MB3066AF7A192440EBA63E11DBD2940@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 12:04:59 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn6t_dPeXuh2O8gdc4KWUm7FjZ3N1WVUPEvX2xng=4_yRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/bLStk2WEPqRi5ym4WLd_ReyDaUk>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG LC https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang/
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 06:35:50 -0000

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://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-spring-srv6-yang-05] 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://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.3

   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.
- 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

- Section 8

   - The yang model lacks a "reference" statement when importing
external modules or designing key concepts. They are useful while
reviewing.
   - Can we rename ipv4-sid and ipv6-sid to ipv4-prefix-sid and
ipv6-prefix-sid respectively?
   - It could be useful to add a description of why ERLD is read-only
in the YANG.
   - Why is the grouping srgb defined in ietf-segment-routing-common,
but the feature protocol-srgb is in ietf-segment-routing-mpls?
   - Can the ISIS YANG typedef be used instead of redefining the
system-id in SR yang.
   - 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

   - 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.

- Section 11, ietf-segment-routing-mpls is missing from IANA section

Thanks!
Dhruv


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:29 PM James Guichard
<james.n.guichard@futurewei.com> wrote:
>
> Dear SPRING WG:
>
>
>
> This email starts a two week WG LC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang/.
>
>
>
> 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
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring