Hi Paul, I have started looking at the recent revision of the draft but haven’t managed to do a formal re-review yet. I will do one as soon as possible.
Apologies for the delay. Regards, Reshad. From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 9:02 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> Cc: YANG Doctors <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Sangwon Hyun <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected]<mailto:[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
