Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09

["Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Juergen, will do. I had updated references for the new RFC8343 and 8349 but missed these docs.

Regards,
Reshad.

On 2018-03-21, 8:51 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Reshad,
    
    this looks good. You proabably also want to update references to point
    to the RFCs that just recently appeared:
    
    - replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] with [RFC8340]
    - replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] with [RFC8342]
    - replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis] with [RFC8344]
    
    /js
    
    On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:06:27PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
    > Hi Juergen,
    > 
    > Thanks again for the excellent review. We've just published rev12 to address your latest comments.
    > 
    > Please see inline.
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Reshad.
    > 
    > On 2018-03-13, 10:58 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    >     On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 02:12:30PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
    >     > 
    >     > We have made the changes in revs 10 and 11 to address your comments . The exception is module ietf-bfd-types which did not get renamed per reason below.
    >     >
    >     
    >     Hi,
    >     
    >     here is my re-review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang. I think the document has
    >     significantly improved since the -09 version, the authors have done an
    >     excellent job to improve the document quality.
    >     
    >     I have mostly a few minor mostly editorial issues left, except the
    >     first one, which concerns the schema mount use case.
    >     
    >     - Thanks for clarifying that the modules can be used on standalone
    >       devices. The new text is helpful.
    >     
    >       For the LNE and NI use cases, does it make sense to detail the mount
    >       points that are used? My understanding is that schema mount requires
    >       that mount points are identified with a "mount-point" extension
    >       statement, i.e., you can't mount at arbitrary places in the
    >       hierarchy but only at places that have been designated as mount
    >       points.
    >     
    >       That all said, since your YANG modules are basically augmenting
    >       other YANG modules that may be mounted, you do not seem to need a
    >       separate schema mount. If my understanding is correct, then here is
    >       a starting point for making this clearer:
    >     
    >       OLD
    >     
    >         When used at the network device level, the BFD YANG model is used
    >         "as-is".  When the BFD model is to be used in a Logical Network
    >         Element or in a Network Instance, the approach taken is to do a
    >         schema-mount (see Schema Mount [I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount]) of the
    >         BFD model in the appropriate location.  For example, if an
    >         implementation supports BFD IP multihop in network instances, the
    >         implementation would do schema-mount of the BFD IP multihop model in
    >         a mount-point which resides in a network instance.
    >     
    >       NEW
    >     
    >         When used at the network device level, the BFD YANG model are used
    >         "as-is".  When the BFD YANG model is used in a Logical Network
    >         Element or in a Network Instance, then the BFD YANG model augments
    >         the mounted routing model for the Logical Network Element or the
    >         Network Instance.
    >     
    >       Note that with this change, you also do not need a reference to
    >       schema mount.
    > <RR> Done.
    >       
    >     - Since the different use cases (device, LNE, NI) are discussed right
    >       at the beginning of Section 2, it seems the following statements in
    >       Sections 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 are not really needed:
    >     
    >                                        The "bfd" node under control-plane-
    >        protocol can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in
    >        an LNE or in a network instance.
    >     
    >                                                 The "ip-sh" node can be used
    >        in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an LNE or in a network
    >        instance.
    >     
    >                                                                 The "ip-mh"
    >        node can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an
    >        LNE or in a network instance.
    >     
    >                                   The "lag" node can be used in a network
    >        device (top-level), or mounted in an LNE or in a network instance.
    >     
    >                                                                  The "mpls"
    >        node can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an
    >        LNE or in a network instance.
    > <RR> Done
    >     
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.13 should also mention RFC
    >       8177 since you are importing it.
    > <RR> Done
    > 
    >     - It might be useful to give more explicit instructions to IANA. I
    >       assume you want IANA to update the iana-bfd-types module whenever
    >       changes are made to the "BFD Diagnostic Codes" registry and "BFD
    >       Authentication Types" registries. Giving clear instructions what
    >       IANA is expected to do and when is better than a soft statement such
    >       as "intended to reflect". But IANA is going to ask questions about
    >       this anyway during their review I assume.
    > <RR> Updated 5.1
    >     
    >     - The feature definitions in ietf-bfd-types have text of the form "as
    >       defined in RFC 5880" and perhaps it makes sense to add reference
    >       statements to these feature definitions. There are also a number of
    >       identities that say "as per RFC 588X" where perhaps reference
    >       statements should be added.
    > <RR> Added reference sections to the feature definitions and identities.
    >     
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.13 should also	mention	RFC
    >       6991 since you are importing it. And you are also importing from
    >       RFC XXXX (the routing model).
    > <RR> 2.13 already mentions RFC 6991 but it was missing from 2.15 and 2.17 (it's been added). 2.13 already has mention of 8022bis (routing model). 8022bis is now rfc8349.
    > 
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.16 should also mention
    >       that you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
    > <RR> We now mention rfc8349 (8022bis).
    >     
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.17 should also mention that
    >       you import from RFC 6991 and from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
    > <RR> Added mention of RFC6991.
    >     
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.18 should also mention that
    >       you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
    > <RR> We now mention rfc8349  (8022bis).
    >     
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.19 should also mention that
    >       you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
    > <RR> We now mention rfc8349   (8022bis).
    >     
    >     - I have not validated the examples - I hope the authors have done so.
    >       They look more plausible than in the previous version I reviewed.
    > <RR> Yes we have validated them using yanglint.
    >     
    >     /js
    >     
    >     -- 
    >     Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
    >     Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
    >     Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
    >     
    > 
    
    > Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:05:36 -0700
    > From: [e-mail]
    > To: Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>, Reshad Rahman
    >  <[e-mail]>, Juniper Networks <[e-mail]>,
    >  Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>, Greg Mirsky
    >  <[e-mail]>, Santosh Pallagatti
    >  <[e-mail]>, Lianshu Zheng <[e-mail]>
    > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt
    > Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
    > 
    > 
    > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt
    > has been successfully submitted by Reshad Rahman and posted to the
    > IETF repository.
    > 
    > Name:		draft-ietf-bfd-yang
    > Revision:	12
    > Title:		YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
    > Document date:	2018-03-20
    > Group:		bfd
    > Pages:		74
    > URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt
    > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/
    > Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12
    > Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang
    > Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12
    > 
    > Abstract:
    >    This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure
    >    and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).
    > 
    >    The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management
    >    Datastore Architecture (NMDA).
    > 
    >                                                                                   
    > 
    > 
    > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
    > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
    > 
    > The IETF Secretariat
    > 
    > 
    
    
    -- 
    Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
    Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
    Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>