p.p.s.
________________________________________
From: GROW <[email protected]> on behalf of tom petch <[email protected]>
Sent: 26 August 2022 17:17

p.s.
________________________________________
From: GROW <[email protected]> on behalf of tom petch <[email protected]>
Sent: 26 August 2022 10:23
From: GROW <[email protected]> on behalf of Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>
Sent: 25 August 2022 15:25

I support adoption.

The draft's YANG is already in better shape than some stuff that's been in 
other working groups for a few years. :-)

<tp>
Yes but with room for improvement :-(  Nothing to stop adoption  but ..

References seem to lack 1191, 8529, 8671, 9069, tcp-client-server, tcpm-yang; 
references tell me whether or not I should expect to understand an I-D so they 
are my second port of call in a review.

one identifier has an underscore - legal but generally a bad idea, easy to 
misread - hyphen-minus is better.

ip address uses the format with a zone; is this intended?

XXXX by convention means  this I-D  - here it is used to mean a number of I-D 
none of which is this one.  Suggest  AAAA, BBBB, CCCC etc

BCP14 boiler plate is included but all appearances of 'must' and 'should'
are lower case AFAICT.

revision date is OOD

identity identifiers get a bit cumbersome - e.g. bmp-ni-types-all-ni-idty which 
is about sending updates which I would not have guessed from the identifier:-)

'waits for the connection to start the connection'  ?

port 27716 is one that can be assigned - better to use one from the Private 
Range

More generally, the I-D is heavily dependent on the BGP one, which makes sense, 
but I am conscious that a previous effort to model BGP, albeit some time ago, 
never made it to RFC.

<tp2>
ps just saw a YANG doctor review from last month for opsawg sap saying he 
really does not like 'idty' and find it confusing.  Amen to that

<tp3>

Make that opsawg service assurance yang, not opsawg sap, where idty raised an 
objection which I see has now been changed..

And add a reference in this I-D to RFC8340 for the YANG tree diagram.

Tom Petch


-- Jeff


> On Aug 25, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
>
> Hi GROW,
>
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Reply via email to