Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your further check on this. We have posted the updated version (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model-07) to fix
the issues that you raised, along with some other updates.

Best regards,
- Xufeng

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:59 AM tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> From: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 20 November 2020 01:26
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> We have posted an updated version
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model-06, to
> address the two additional items below.
>
> <tp>
>
> Indeed and here are some more:-(
>
> Both YANG module still import te-topology as an I-D not RFC
>
[Xufeng]: Updated.

>
> Your e-mail address in the YANG modules does not match that in the I-D
>
[Xufeng]: Fixed.

>
> ETSI references would benefit from a URL both in YANG and in I-D references
>
[Xufeng]: Added the URL in I-D references. I’m a little hesitant to add it
to YANG since other references in the “reference statement” do not do it,
and this reference has a very long URL that would be used multiple times.

>
> ETSI GS NFV has been updated three times since December 2014
>
[Xufeng]: Updated.

>
> Why the underscore in _3GPP.28.801?
>
[Xufeng]: A reference anchor tag in IETF cannot start with a numerical
number so 3GPP.28.801 would not work. The underscore is a trick that we
took from the draft-defoy.

>
> Why the underscore in Figure 2 etc in the ASCII version of the I-D?
>
[Xufeng]: Fixed them with the notes.

>
> draft-defoy expired three years ago; that is problematic for a Normative
> Reference
>
[Xufeng]: I think that it should be informative, and moved it as such.

>
> Tom Petch
>
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:08 AM <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>> wrote:
> From: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>
> Sent: 12 March 2020 21:57
>
> We have posted the updated version (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model-05 ) to
> fix the issues that you raised.
> Thanks a lot,
>
> <tp>
> Xufeng,
>
> looks better and apologies for being slow to respond.
>
> C.12 IANA, C.13 Security look odd and contradict s.5, s.6.  Is there any
> reason for them to exist?
>
> Security s.6 does not conform to the boiler plate referenced in RFC8407.
> This asks that sensitive nodes be called out and I would think that at
> least the enable nodes for connectivity matrix and link terminations would
> qualify for that.
>
> [Xufeng]: Fixed. C.13 is now following RFC8407. s.5, s.6. were mistakenly
> merged from a different draft (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-use-cases-sf-aware-topo-model-00).
> These two sections have now been removed.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> - Xufeng
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 6:05 AM tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> wrote:
> Xufeng
>
> Some quirks.
>
> Introduction/Abstract do not mention support or lack thereof  for NMDA
> (which the IESG have been calling for).
> [Xufeng]: Added.
>
> Introduction does not have a reference for YANG leaving the question of
> version number uncertain
> [Xufeng]: Added.
>
> Terminology fails to reference RFC8174
> [Xufeng]: Fixed
>
> Expand on first use, perhaps in Terminology, is helpful - TOSCA, SF2LTP,
> SF2SF, SF2TTP,
> [Xufeng]: Fixed
>
> CSO
> [Xufeng]: Authors and contributors discussed CSO and decided to remove it
> from this document and put it into a separate document.
>
> yang-version 1 is rather limiting
> [Xufeng]: Use 1.1 now.
>
> YANG import statements lack references (which YANG 1.1 allows)
>
> /       reference "TBD";/
>        reference "RFC XXXX - SF Aware TE Topology YANG Model"; /
> [Xufeng]: Fixed these statements.
>
>    module ietf-cso-dc
> no version
> no copyright
> no reference to the I-D
> no description clauses
> no reference clauses
> somewhat short of ready IMHO- I think that this needs a lot of work!
> [Xufeng]: As mentioned above, CSO is removed from this document and
> planned to be put into a separate document.
>
> IANA Considerations
>    RFC Ed.: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the
>    actual RFC number (and remove this note).
> I suggest that this apply throughout the I-D and that the Note is placed
> at the start, before the Introduction (the RFC Editor are happy with
> just the one note)
> [Xufeng]: Changed as suggeted.
>
> RFC6020 is a better reference for the IANA Considerations
> [Xufeng]: Right. Use  RFC6020 now.
>
>    [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores]
> RFC8342
> [Xufeng]: Fixed.
>
>    [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]
> RFC8340
> [Xufeng]:  Fixed.
>
>    [I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo]
> RFC8345
> [Xufeng]: Fixed.
>
>      import ietf-actn-vn {
> does not appear in section 1.3
> [Xufeng]: Added.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Xufeng Liu" <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>>
> To: "TEAS WG" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 12:02 PM
> Subject: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model
>
>
> > Current Status:
> >
> >   *  The updated revision -03 was posted on Mar 11, 2019:
> >
> >      > Editorial fixes.
> >
> > Open Issues:
> >
> >   *   None.
> >
> > Next Steps:
> >
> >   *  Update the document to align with the latest versions of
> >      referenced documents, including draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo,
> >      RFC8340, RFC8342, RFC8345, and RFC8459.
> >   *  Update the section of Security Considerations according to latest
> >      guidelines.
> >   *  Get further reviews.
> >   *  YANG doctor's review.
> >   *  Working Group Last Call after completing above.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Xufeng
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
>
>