[yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-07

Radek Krejčí via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 27 April 2022 08:49 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Radek Krejčí via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <165104936951.1514.14609727937060271565@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Radek Krejčí <radek.krejci@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 01:49:29 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/Vv0ZNu15L214ci-sV7k5Zu63d54>
Subject: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-07

Reviewer: Radek Krejčí
Review result: Ready with Nits

The draft addresses/fixes previous comments.

The draft, as well as the module, is well written and the only issue I've found
is kind of unclear use for the
/nw:networks/nw:network/nt:link/pm-attributes/vpn-pm-type choice. I don't
understand the logic of having one case config true and the second one config
false. Does it mean that the second one is the default? Then it should be
stated in the choice. I'm not an expert in the area, but I understand the
choice as a way for clients to select the type of performance monitoring. Then
it is kind of confusing that I can actually select only one of the available
types. What about having config true presence container in the second case and
holding config false leaf(s) there, wouldn't it be more clear?

[yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of dr… Radek Krejčí via Datatracker
Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review o… Wubo (lana)