Hi Alvaro, I see you approved for IESG review. Stephane and I have some more updates in -36 version. See inline.
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 3:29 PM To: "draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-...@ietf.org>, Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkow...@orange.com> Cc: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "lsr-cha...@ietf.org" <lsr-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-35 Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>, Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com> Resent-Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 3:29 PM On June 27, 2019 at 8:36:46 AM, stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com> (stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>) wrote: Stephane: Hi! Sorry it took me while to get to your reply. Thanks for your comments. We are working on updating the document accordingly. Please find some replies inline that may require more discussion. I have stripped the comments that will be fixed in the next revision. Just leaving some text with answers. Thanks! Alvaro. ... 474 Some parameters like "overload bit" and "route preference" are not 475 modeled to support a per level configuration. If an implementation 476 supports per level configuration for such parameter, this 477 implementation SHOULD augment the current model by adding both 478 level-1 and level-2 containers and SHOULD reuse existing 479 configuration groupings. [major] "...SHOULD augment the current model by adding both level-1 and level-2 containers" What other way would that be done? I think that Normative language is not needed in this case. [SLI] Using YANG there are multiple ways to do things. People may create new containers, use different namings… and we want to keep the modeling consistency even in the future augmentations. Ok…why not use MUST then? Are there cases where it would be ok to not be consistent? IOW, the current wording doesn’t guarantee consistency… This is a MUST in the -36 version. ... 978 sequence-number-skipped: This notification is sent when the system 979 receives a PDU with its own system ID and different contents. The 980 system has to reissue the LSP with a higher sequence number. [nit] That's the last thing I would have guessed that this action would have been called... Maybe it's just me... [SLI] This is inherited from RFC4444 I guess operators are familiar with this SNMP Trap misnomer. 982 authentication-type-failure: This notification is sent when the 983 system receives a PDU with the wrong authentication type field. 985 authentication-failure: This notification is sent when the system 986 receives a PDU with the wrong authentication information. [minor] Why do we need both of these? Given that they both provide the same information (including the raw PDU), and that authentication-type-failure is a specific case of receiving "a PDU with the wrong authentication information" [SLI] This is inherited from RFC4444 You used this reply in several places. Inheriting things from rfc4444 doesn’t mean it is ok…or the best solution… In either case, most are minor comments, so no big deal. I just want to make sure that some of the points were considered. In one case the wrong type of authentication is used, e.g., none vs auth-trailer and in the other the neighbors agree on authentication type but authentication fails. ... 1239 feature nsr { 1240 description 1241 "Non-Stop-Routing (NSR) support."; 1242 } [minor] Reference? [SLI] NSR is a local well known and deployed mechanism. We may enhance the description if required, however we cannot really provide a reference. Yes, please do. See the description in draft-ietf-ospf-yang. This is included in the -36 version. ... 3995 grouping tlv242-router-capabilities { 3996 container router-capabilities { 3997 list router-capability { 3998 leaf flags { 3999 type bits { 4000 bit flooding { 4001 position 0; 4002 description 4003 "If the S bit is set, the IS-IS Router CAPABILITY 4004 TLV MUST be flooded across the entire routing 4005 domain. If the S bit is clear, the TLV MUST NOT 4006 be leaked between levels. This bit MUST NOT 4007 be altered during the TLV leaking."; 4008 } [major] This is a description of the behavior (copied from rfc7981!), not a description of the field. [SLI] Yes, but this provides an accurate description on the conditions of the flag setting. But this document is not Normative in the behavior above…. If anything, Normative language should not be used unless making it clear that it is a direct quote. This is represented as an RFC 7981 quote in the -36 version. ... 4540 notification lsp-too-large { 4541 uses notification-instance-hdr; 4542 uses notification-interface-hdr; 4544 leaf pdu-size { 4545 type uint32; 4546 description "Size of the LSP PDU"; 4547 } 4548 leaf lsp-id { 4549 type lsp-id; 4550 description "LSP ID"; 4552 } 4553 description 4554 "This notification is sent when we attempt to propagate 4555 an LSP that is larger than the dataLinkBlockSize for the 4556 circuit. The notification generation must be throttled 4557 with at least 5 seconds between successive 4558 notifications."; 4559 } ... [major] "must be throttled" Why is this text not Normative? It seems to me that throttling is a good practice...in fact, it may be a good idea to specify it for all notifications. There are 12 total instances of the same text. [SLI] The text is mirrored from RFC4444. I think this was the only “major” point what you replied with rfc4444…. Just leaving it here…. No further comments. ;-) We didn’t change this notification throttling from RFC 4444. I’m not sure if it should be specified in the YANG model or be something that an implementation provides via configuration for all notifications. Thanks, Acee and Stephane
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
