From: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> Sent: 27 April 2021 16:49 Tom,
Can you please provide the concrete suggestions to the authors on the changes you like to see? <tp> Linda I hope that you are still happy:-) I thought some more (a bad habit of mine:-) about range and exact values and wonder why capability splits them into two separate identity. This is not what the YANG modules say. The usual way to model this is with a start and end and a comment that if only one value is required, then start equals end. This is widely used throughout the IETF and is indeed used in draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec.... which has the approval of the IESG. So, since the YANG always AFAICT allows both range and exact value, then why split them in capability? Not wrong, but seems an unnecessary complication adding some 25 extra identity. I can imagine a chip designer saying I can exact match at wire speed but not range match; but as I say, that is not what we have in the YANG. It could be in the YANG e.g. as a feature but isn't in any IETF YANG module that I know of so chip designers are probably cleverer than I imagine! Tom Petch This is the second time of the WGLC for the draft. It would be very helpful to hear your suggestions during the WGLC window. Thank you very much Linda -----Original Message----- From: tom petch <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:44 AM To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16 _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
