Alex:
I had hoped to celebrate IETF-100 with submitting draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17 to the IESG. However, there are still a few things to resolve from Kent Watens review (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg04501.html). In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I found the following things addressed: 1) "ietf-network" uses prefix "nd", should be "nw" and "ietf-network-topology" uses prefix "lnk" should be "nt" or maybe "nwtp". 2) the groupings "link-ref" and "tp-ref" descriptions should indicate why they are defined but not used in these modules 3) Both /nd:networks/network/network-id and /nd:networks/network/link/link-id are the key fields to their respective lists, but they are not the first nodes listed in the list. In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I do not find the following things address that Ken commented on: 1) Kent's comment: Use cases exist in appendix A, but yang examples do not exist. Fix: Short examples could be put in Appendix A with each use case) 2) Kent's comment: The document defines its own "datastore" term, rather than import the term from revised-datastores. Question: Section 3 still gives its own datastore definition. Is there a reason I missed on this approach? Could you wrap up these two issues today and submit a -18 to the IETF drafts? I'd love to chat today about these two issues. Susan Hares (shepherd/co-chair) She
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
