Hi Tom, I will use start-date-time according to your suggestion. Thanks.
Best Regards, Paul On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:35 AM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > Top-posting one more comment about the different I-Ds being different:-) > > This I-D uses the leaf start-time where other I-D s use leaf > start-date-time. This inconsistency was apparent when I looked at > draft-lingga-i2nsf-application-interface-dm-00 > where there are two examples one after the other with the different > formats. I think that start-date-time is better but, as ever, I do like > consistency! > > Tom Petch > > From: I2nsf <[email protected]> on behalf of t petch < > [email protected]> > Sent: 02 September 2021 12:41 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3:27 PM > > > Hi Tom, > > Patrick and I have addressed your comments below with -09 version: > > > > I attach the revision letter to explain how to address them. > > > > Please let us know where this revision satisfies you or not. > > Paul > > Getting there. > > You have added some references to the YANG module - good - but you must > also add them to the I-D References > > I see > RFC854, RFC913, RFC1081, RFC4340, RFC4960, RFC5321, RFC7230, RFC7231. > RFC1081 is obsoleted by RFC1225 so that would likely be a better > reference. In other I-D you have cited RFC793bis - I do not know if > that is appropriate here. > > You import > ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf { > with prefix nsfi but in nsf-facing the prefix is nsfintf > Needs to be consistent > > In identity, derived from application-protocol (a base which I like), I > note that 'imap' is present elsewhere but not here. I do not know if > that is relevant to this module or not. > > In the data module: > > /http:/https:/ > > leaf src-zone { > I was thrown by this thinking of IPv6 address zones but the description > makes in clear that this is nothing of the sort. Probably not worth > changing but if you do I would suggest src-location as is used in the > description clause. > > leaf-list user-agent { > I think that the description violates (!) the limit on line length for > an RFC > > container i2nsf-counters { > description > "This is probably better covered by an import as this > This seems unfinished > > leaf alarm-type { > elsewhere you have switched to lower case (which I think right) but this > needs bringing in line (I do like consistency). > > 10. I2NSF Event Stream > you are using the NETMOD convention for line breaks; would benefit from > a reference > "line breaks as per [RFC8792] > > The I-D is big and I hope to find time this month to go through it again > in more detail. Meanwhile, on to capability. > > In passing, I get a bounce for skku-iotlab-members every time. > > Tom Petch > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > Best Regards, > > Paul > > > > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:44 PM t petch > <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > To: <tom petch> > > Cc: <Last Call>; <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; <Andy > Bierman>; <Yoav Nir>; > > > <[email protected]<mailto:draft-ie > [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-m > onitoring-data-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]><mailto:daedulus@b > tconnect.com<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 > > > > Attachments: > > > Revision-Letter-for-NSF-Monitoring-YANG-Data-Model-version-09-20210824.d > ocx 103 kB > > > Revision-Letter-for-NSF-Monitoring-YANG-Data-Model-version-09-20210824.p > df 420 kB > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
