Hi Tom,
I will use your comments to synchronize all the five I2NSF YANG data model
drafts.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:44 PM t petch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Paul
>
> Top posting since this is a more general response (and leaving in YANG
> doctors since I note that five different YANG doctors reviewed the five
> I-D and so might not see the issue that concerns me).
>
> As you have probably realised, I have now looked at the five YANG I-D of
> I2NSF and am concerned at the disparate approaches to the same topics
> that I think will confuse a user and, likely, induce mistakes.  I
> provided some detailed comments  in response to WG LC on
> capability-data-model but really it cuts across all five.  It may be
> that the inconsistenicies that I see can be justified but if so, then I
> think that the I-D may need some text to say so, to relate one I-D to
> another.
>
> The treatment of YANG identity for ICMP is to me a clear example.  I
> think that nsf-monitoring is good here, deriving icmpv4 and icmpv6 from
> icmp (and ipv4 and ipv6)
> while capability is not good having icmp (sic) and icmpv6 as two
> unrelated identity, no common base.
>
> But at a higher level it may be that capability has a better treatment
> where it has
>    base event; [from which is derived]
>      identity system-event-capability {
>      identity system-alarm-capability {
>
>    base system-event-capability;
>      identity access-violation {
>      identity configuration-change {
>
>    base system-alarm-capability;
>      identity memory-alarm {
>      identity cpu-alarm {
>      identity disk-alarm {
>      identity hardware-alarm {
>      identity interface-alarm {
>
> while nsf-monitoring has
>
>    base alarm-type;
>      identity mem-usage-alarm {
>      identity cpu-usage-alarm {
>      identity disk-usage-alarm {
>      identity hw-failure-alarm {
>      identity ifnet-state-alarm {
>
>    base event-type;
>      identity access-denied {
>      identity config-change {
>
> Different structure, different terminology, and these examples are quite
> close compared to some others.  I would expect at least the root of the
> identifier to be the same if not the whole identifier.
>
> What is missing, for me, is an underlying, high-level, information model
> to provide a consistent structure and a consistent terminology for the
> I2NSF YANG I-D.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email protected]>
> To: <tom petch>
> Cc: <Last Call>; <[email protected]>; <Andy Bierman>; <Yoav Nir>;
> <[email protected]>; <Linda
> Dunbar>; <Patrick Lingga>; <YANG Doctors>; <skku-iotlab-members>; <Mr.
> Jaehoon Paul Jeong>
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06
>
>
> > Hi Tom,
> > Patrick and I have addressed all your comments below with the
> following revision.
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-da
> ta-model-08
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-08>
> >
> > I attach our revision letter.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Paul
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 6:59 PM tom petch
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> > Paul
> >
> > Some admin comments on -07; I think that you need to:
> >
> > - change the title in YANG revision reference
> >
> > - add to the I-D references
> > RFC959
> > RFC8632
> >
> > - shorten lines. There is a limit to line length in RFC as per the
> Style
> > Guide.  This is exceeded in the YANG where some of the path statements
> > take it over 80 while some of the examples are over 100.
> >
> > - add a reference for the import of
> > ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Tom Petcb
> >
> > On 01/04/2021 03:09, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote:
> > > > Hi Andy, Linda, and Yoav,
> > > > Patrick and I have addressed all the comments from Andy.
> > > > Here is the revised draft -07:
> > ATT00001.txt 130 bytes
>
_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Reply via email to