Hi Reshad,
I have reflected your four comments on -08 version:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-08
The following changes have been made from
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-07:
o draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model is cited as a normative
reference according to the guideline at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.9
o For the references to draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model in
the YANG model, they are qualified with a note to the editor that
the draft will become an RFC, so the actual RFC number of the
draft needs to be used.
o The editor's notes are put to request to replace XXXX with the
actual RFC number of this document (i.e., draft-ietf-i2nsf-
registration-interface-dm) when the document is published.
o Leaf nodes (i.e., processing-average and processing-peak) under
container processing have unit GHz explicitly with units "GHz".
Could you check it and move it forward?
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Paul
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 6:58 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Reshad,
> I will reflect your comments on the revision.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:28 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>>
>>
>> Apologies for the delay. I took a look at rev-07 and here are some things
>> which I missed in previous reviews:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model is an informative
>> reference, it should be a normative reference as per
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.9
>> 2. There are references to draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model in
>> the YANG model which should be qualified with a note to the editor (that
>> draft will become an RFC). As an example search for YYYY in
>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt
>>
>> 3. The editor’s note should also request to change XXXX to actual
>> RFC number when the document is published.
>>
>> 1. Leaf nodes under container processing should have unit GHz. On
>> this note, I’m not sure how clock speed uniquely identifies performance,
>> but I won’t pretend to be an expert in the area. IMO this is something the
>> WG should comment on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Reshad.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email protected]>
>> *Date: *Monday, March 9, 2020 at 7:23 AM
>> *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]>
>> *Cc: *YANG Doctors <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <
>> [email protected]>, Sangwon Hyun <[email protected]>, skku-iotlab-members <
>> [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,
>>
>> We authors have addressed your comments in the revision:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-07
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I attach the revision letter for your easy checkup.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once your comments are addressed well, please update the YANG review
>> result:
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your valuable help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 6:54 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> Going back to this comment on rev-05:
>>
>> - Abide by order in RFC8407 Appendix B. e.g. RPC statements should be
>> after groupings.
>>
>> The only thing which seems to have been fixed is that the RPC statement
>> was put after groupings. But you should look at
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#page-61:
>>
>> // extension statements
>>
>> // feature statements
>>
>> // identity statements
>>
>> // typedef statements
>>
>> // grouping statements
>>
>> // data definition statements
>>
>> // augment statements
>>
>> // rpc statements
>>
>> // notification statements
>>
>> // DO NOT put deviation statements in a published module
>>
>>
>>
>> That means your data definition statements (container nsf-registrations)
>> should be after the groupings.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also the indentation seems off on the YANG module in some places, for
>> example on P14.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Reshad.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email protected]>
>> *Date: *Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:49 PM
>> *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]>
>> *Cc: *YANG Doctors <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <
>> [email protected]>, Sangwon Hyun <[email protected]>, skku-iotlab-members <
>> [email protected]>
>> *Subject: *Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of
>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Reshad,
>>
>> Could you update the review status as READY?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2019-06-28/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 11:32 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Reshad,
>>
>> Thanks for your valuable comments and help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 8:38 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have verified that you’ve addressed all comments which were provided on
>> 05.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Reshad.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email protected]>
>> *Date: *Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:32 AM
>> *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]>
>> *Cc: *YANG Doctors <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <
>> [email protected]>, Sangwon Hyun <[email protected]>, skku-iotlab-members <
>> [email protected]>, Patrick Lingga <
>> [email protected]>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <
>> [email protected]>
>> *Subject: *Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of
>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04
>>
>>
>>
>> Reshad,
>>
>> Could you respond to my previous email about the latest revision of the
>> I2NSF Registration Interface YANF Data Model draft?
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-06
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are satisfied with my revision, could you update the YANG Doctor's
>> review result in the following link?
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2019-06-28/
>>
>>
>>
>> After getting your review update state, I can ask the I2NSF WG chairs to
>> make the WG Last Call on
>>
>> our I2NSF Registration Interface draft.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your efforts and help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:08 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Reshad,
>>
>> We authors have addressed your comments with the following revision:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-06
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I attach the revision letter to show how to address your comments.
>>
>>
>>
>> Could your check this revision and proceed with the YANG review update?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:58 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have done another review (I don’t think an automated email got sent
>> out).
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2019-06-28/
>>
>>
>>
>> YANG Doctor review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-05 (by
>> Reshad Rahman)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for addressing comments from my earlier review @
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2019-06-28/
>>
>>
>>
>> Major comments/questions:
>>
>> - There is a YANG warning on the datatracker page:
>>
>> [email protected]:54: warning: RFC 8407: 3.1: The
>> IETF Trust Copyright statement seems to be missing (see pyang --ietf-help
>> for details).
>>
>> To fix this, in the YANG module remove the <> around 2019: Copyright (c)
>> <2019>
>>
>>
>>
>> - For contact in YANG module, please remove WG chair info (see RFC8407
>> appendix B for an example)
>>
>>
>>
>> - For the revision in YANg module, put "Initial version" (even though
>> it's the 5th revision)
>>
>>
>>
>> - Why define a union of ipv4-address and ipv6-address in typedef
>> nsf-address, why not reuse existing ip-address type from RFC6021?
>>
>>
>>
>> - For bandwidth, is there a reason why it's limited to uint16? Even
>> though 65Tbps is a lot, I wouldn't limit it to uint16. And aren't there any
>> use-cases for bandwidth smaller than 1 Gbps? If yes, use e.g Mbps as unit
>> and use uint32 instead of uint16? Please use units statement.
>>
>> - It is not clear to me what’s the distinction between nsf-name and
>> nsf-instance-name. In Examples 4 and 5, they have the same value, but not
>> in Example 3. Might be worth clarifying or giving the same name.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Having nsf or i2nsf in many node names is redundant, since NSF or I2NSF
>> is in the higher level container name. e.g, in NSF Capability Registration
>> all nodes seem to have i2nsf or nsf in their name.
>>
>>
>>
>> - There seems to be some indentation issues in the YANG module (e.g. P16)
>>
>>
>>
>> - Abide by order in RFC8407 Appendix B. e.g. RPC statements should be
>> after groupings.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nits:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Appendix B: Managmenet -> Management
>>
>>
>>
>> - Section 6.2: capailities -> capabilities
>>
>>
>>
>> - Example 5: space in "http_and_h ttps_flood_mitigation_capability"
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Reshad.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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]> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ===========================
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ===========================
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ===========================
>> 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>
>
--
===========================
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
