Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-18

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your review and comments.
See in line below our replies.
We have fixed most of the comments in github , see PR #111<https://github.com/rvilalta/ietf-te-path-computation/pull/111>

Thanks
Sergio and Italo (on behalf of other authors/contributors)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
> Sent: lunedì 20 giugno 2022 13:17
> To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>; TEAS WG
> <teas@ietf.org>
> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-18
>
> On 16/06/2022 13:48, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote:
> > We are extending the last call to June 24th to allow for a few more reviews.
> >
>
> The examples should use documentation IP addresses and not 10/8.
>

IBSB> Agree: to be fixed in issue #108<https://github.com/rvilalta/ietf-te-path-computation/issues/108> (aligning the changes to the IP address within the TE tunnel draft)

> The YANG module has a lot of 'must'.  Should they be MUST with a suitable
> reference to the BCP at the start of the module?  I expect that an AD will raise
> this:-(
>

IBSB> Ok, fixed

> I note the wide use of i.e. and e.g. which makes me think the authors are
> comfortable with those abbreviations but I wonder about the two 'e.g.' in the
> YANG  module 'requested-info' and 'requested-state'.  Are they really e.g.?  No
> need to change if they are.
>

IBSB> They are really "e.g.". The 'requested-info' can be metrics but also srlg or affinities. The 'requested-state' can be the expiration timer but also the transaction-id.

> 'requested-info' is a bit awkward. 'information' singular, 'metrics'
> plural', 'is' singular.  Perhaps
> 'This grouping defines the information that is requested (e.g. metrics)
>

IBSB> Ok, fixed

> 'returning path srlgs'
> probably worth expanding srlg here in the YANG module
>

IBSB> Ok, fixed

> 'if also the tunnel name is reported'
> perhaps
> 'if the tunnel name is also reported'
>

IBSB> Ok, fixed

> What is the difference between
> request-id uint32
> and
> request-id-number uint32
> Seems confusing?
>

IBSB> Ok, fixed to use only request-id

> In a number of places, thie I-D says that it contains RPC but it does not!  It
> augments the RPC in yang-te which I think a distinction worth making e.g. with
> 'This document provides a mechanism to [request path computation etc] by
> augmenting the RPC in RFC YYYY'
>

IBSB> Ok, fixed

> Tom Petch
>
>
> > -Pavan and Lou
> >
> > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:14 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> > <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> This starts working group last call on
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computatio
> >> n/
> >>
> >> Given the size of the document, this will be an extended LC (3
> >> weeks). The working group last call ends on June 14th.
> >> Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.
> >>
> >> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it
> >> is ready for publication", are welcome!
> >> This is useful and important, even from authors.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Pavan and Lou
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > mailto:Teas@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
>
>