Tom and Qin: During the summer as an chair, I am a bit more flexible on the closing for WGs. This WG LC was to close by this week, but I will extended it 2 weeks to allow two things to happen: 1) RTGWG to provide WG LC 2) I2RS members to address Qin's changes to address Tom Petch's comments.
Cheerily, Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: Qin Wu [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 1:04 AM To: tom petch; Susan Hares; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [i2rs] WG LC: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-07.txt Hi, Tom: Thank for your valuable review. See comments inline below. -----邮件原件----- 发件人: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 tom petch 发送时间: 2019年8月16日 20:00 收件人: Susan Hares <[email protected]>; [email protected] 抄送: [email protected] 主题: Re: [i2rs] WG LC: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-07.txt Not ready The text says /*Consider udpating this part to make use of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel*/ Well yes, consider it and come to a conclusion otherwise I cannot see how this is ready to advance. [Qin]: Good catch, will fix this. The idea is to align with RFC7224 and reuse iana-interface-type. The YANG module contains many references - good - but they are not in the I-D references; again, not ready to advance. I see 4761 4762 6325 6326 7348 802.1ad 802.1ah 802.1Q [Qin]:Fixed. IANA considerations references RFC7950 - RFC 6020 is better here as all that RFC7950 says is go see RFC6020. [Qin]:Agree, will update based on your suggestion. OLD This version of this YANG module is part of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topo-07; NEW This version of this YANG module is part of "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Layer-2 Network Topologies" [Qin]:Fixed. You also have this unsuitable reference twice in the state module [Qin]:Fixed. The state module lacks references for the imports [Qin]:Fixed. The state module description clause seems misleading; it is only the state part of a module when NMDA is not supported. [Qin]:Fixed. Appendix A - is it Normative? The customary convention is the Appendices are not unless stated otherwise and there is no statement here. [Qin]:No, will make this clear. 'An Example' does not use the addresses set aside for documentation [Qin]:Good catch, will use RFC7042 recommended address range. What is the closing date for this Last call? Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan Hares" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 4:42 PM > Greetings: > > > > This draft on L2 network topology has been reviewed by the I2RS WG 3 times. > > However, in discussion with the ADs it is deemed appropriate to do one more > > WG LC and include any input from rtgwg or grow. > > > > Please indicate whether you support publication of this document. > > In your comments, please indicate "support" or no "support". > > > > If you feel there issues that need to be resolved, > > Please indicate whether these issues are editorial, > > Yang syntax, or technical content. > > > > It would be helpful to indicate whether you know of > > Network deployments or potential network deployments of this draft. > > > > Cheerily, > > > > Sue Hares > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
