Hi Paul, I leave my co-authors to respond on the YANG aspects.
Regarding the initial-retransmission-timeout I think we meant a time in second. Do you think we need more options? BR, Daniel On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2016, Daniel Migault wrote: > > Subject: [IPsec] FW: New Version Notification for >> draft-tran-ipsecme-ikev2-yang-00.txt >> > > Please find our first version for the YANG model for IKEv2. Feel free >> to post comments. I would be also happy to have face-to-face >> discussions on the draft - especially from IKEv2 implementers. >> > > Might be good for me to have a talk about it, especially because I'm > not a yang person. . I'm still a bit confused about the syntax. There is > code in the document that looks like "ready to use" but also looks like > "example to use". like: > > description > "This YANG module defines the configuration and operational > state data for Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) on > IETF draft. > Copyright (c) 2016 Ericsson AB. > All rights reserved."; > > All rights reserved? huh? Is that an example? or is this an error? > > I'm confused about units too, like: > > leaf initial-retransmission-timeout { > type uint32; > description > "initial retransmission timeout value"; > } > > look weird to me. What's the unit here? uint32 is not a unit, it is > a number Is this seconds? miliseconds? seconds since 1970? Since 1772? > > Some of it looks like just copying IANA registries? So that would be > outdated quickly. How would that get updated? Should we really put > chunks of code in RFCs like that? > > Paul > > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec