Re: [yang-doctors] [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-12

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the reminder. Just posted a new version
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-yang-17 to update the references.

Best,
- Xufeng

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:52 AM, tom p. <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Xufeng
>
> You might want to update your references at some point; several of the
> I-Ds  referenced in -16 are now RFC e.g.
>
> 8340 tree diagram
> 8342 NMDA
> 8343 Interfaces 7223bis
> 8349 Routing Management 8022bis
>
> Also, you reference RFC5306 from the YANG module but I cannot see it in
> the References of the I-D.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Xufeng Liu" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>;
> <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
> <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 6:30 PM
>
> > Hi Juergen,
> >
> > Thanks for looking at the document and providing further valuable
> comments.
> > We have updated the document with https://tools.ietf.org/
> > html/draft-ietf-pim-yang-16 to address these issues.
> >
> > Besides these fixes,  authors and PIM Working Group have further
> considered
> > and discussed the type of statistic counters in the model. We have
> decided
> > to used 64-bit type instead of 32-bit type:
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/ti58tMl9ppt7r19DxN8tTAn8n4w
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Pifg3ABQVgvsFWLTIsI9yLR6RXA
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Xufeng
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> > [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have checked version -15 today. The document has improved quite a
> > > bit. Thanks for taking my comments into account. Section 2.5 is much
> > > clearer now and I believe the new MIB mapping section is helpful.
> > > Thanks also for expanding the security considerations section and
> > > adding the example in the Appendix.
> > >
> > > Below are some questions that came up during my review of -15:
> > >
> > > a) I did not validate the example in Appendix A using tools but I
> > >    wonder whether
> > >
> > >                      "pim-sm:sm": [null]
> > >
> > >    is really correct. Should this not be
> > >
> > >                      "ietf-pim-sm:sm": [null]
> > >
> > >    in JSON? There are multiple occurances of this. I think the 'sm'
> > >    node you refer to here is a container - so why would it be
> [null]?
> > >
> > [Xufeng]: Fixed.
> >
> >
> > >    I also wonder whether this is correct:
> > >
> > >                      "source-address": "ietf-routing-types:*",
> > >
> > >    RFC 7951 seems to indicate that this should simply be "*" and not
> > >    "ietf-routing-types:*". So again, has the example been validated?
> > >
> >
> > [Xufeng]: Fixed. Also fixed the validation tool to correct other
> errors in
> > the example.
> >
> > >
> > > b) You seem to use a notation in the tree diagrams that is not
> defined
> > >    in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-06.txt:
> > >
> > >           +--rw <global configuration>
> > >
> > >    I assume this means something like
> > >
> > >           +--rw // global configuration
> > >
> > >    but even that does not seem comply to the common tree diagram
> > >    notation.  Perhaps simply state somewhere in Section 1.2 that
> > >    things in <> brackets are placeholders.
> > >
> >
> > [Xufeng]: Added the description in Sec. 1.2.
> >
> > >
> > >    Why is section 1.2 called 'Tree Diagrams Prefixes' - should it
> > >    not be just "Tree Diagrams"?
> > >
> >
> > [Xufeng]: Yes. Fixed.
> >
> > >
> > > c) I am still unsure what 'wider management interfaces' are, perhaps
> > >    replace 'wider' with 'other'.
> > >
> >
> > [Xufeng]: Changed as suggested. Thanks.
> >
> > >
> > > d) Spelling errors: instnace, conatin, the the, cooresponding
> > >
> >
> > [Xufeng]: Fixed.
> >
> > >
> > > /js
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>