Hi Reshad, I believe that I have addressed your comments on I2NSF Registration Interface Data Model: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-05
If you are satisfied with the revision, could you update the Review result in the following page? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2019-06-28/ Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 11:23 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Reshad, > Here is the revision letter for the revised draft, reflecting your > comments along with the revised draft: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-05 > > If you have further comments and questions, please let me know. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:17 PM Reshad Rahman via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Reshad Rahman >> Review result: On the Right Track >> >> YANG Doctor review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04 (by >> Reshad >> Rahman) >> >> Major comments: >> - Look at appendix B of RFC8407 for an example of how a YANG module >> should be >> structured. This document does not abide to that. - Poor descriptions e.g. >> "nsf-name" for leaf "nsf-name" etc - prefix "iiregi" doesn't seem right. >> What >> about "nsfreg"? Probably needs coordination with the other I2NSF YANG >> modules >> to have consistency between the prefixes. I see that YD Acee suggested >> "nsfintf" for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06 - No unit >> specified >> for bandwidth, processing (performance) - nsf-address is IPv4 specific - >> Security considerations should list the nodes as per section 3.7 of >> RFC8407. - >> Should this document be informational since 8329 is informational? - >> Section 2 >> should use RFC8174 also - Refer to RFC8407 instead of 6807 (YANG >> Guidelines) - >> Examples should use IPv6 as examples (use the range from RFC3849). Kudos >> for >> all the examples. >> >> Minor comments and questions: >> - The YANG trees such as Figure 6, 7 etc don't show the contents of the >> groupings. So they don't help much. - nsf-port-address should be >> nsf-port? - >> Section 4, last bullet. I am not an expert on I2NSF so not clear to me >> why this >> query is needed, is it because NSF may not re-register after their >> capabilities >> have been updated? Might be worth adding some explanation. - Have the >> examples >> been validated? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I2nsf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >> > > > -- > =========================== > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. > Associate Professor > Department of Software > Sungkyunkwan University > Office: +82-31-299-4957 > Email: [email protected], [email protected] > Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> > -- =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Software Sungkyunkwan University Office: +82-31-299-4957 Email: [email protected], [email protected] Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
