I support adoption of this draft.
I have reviewed draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-02, and ask that the
following comments be considered after the document has been adopted:
1. Does the draft still require a normative reference to 6020? Given
that the modules are all YANG revision 1.1 perhaps this isn't required
any more?
2. In appendix D:
i) it would be better if the YANG library example was updated to match
the model in YANG library bis (e.g. use a modules path rather than
modules-state).
ii) I think that it should state that this is an example of the data
that may be received by reading from the operational state datastore.
iii) In the example, the "interface-state" tree output should be merged
in with "interfaces" so illustrate the combined NMDA view.
3. ipv6 prefix list.
When I had first looked at combining the existing RFC YANG modules to
NMDA, I came up with a slightly different way of modelling IPv6
prefixes, splitting "no-advertise-prefix-list" separately from the
"advertised prefixes".
E.g. if your draft the tree output is:
+--rw prefix-list
+--rw prefix* [prefix-spec]
+--rw prefix-spec inet:ipv6-prefix
+--rw (control-adv-prefixes)?
+--:(no-advertise)
| +--rw no-advertise? empty
+--:(advertise)
+--rw valid-lifetime? uint32
+--rw on-link-flag? boolean
+--rw preferred-lifetime? uint32
+--rw autonomous-flag? boolean
Perhaps you could consider this structure instead (I can send you the
actual YANG if it helps):
+--rw no-advertise-prefix-list
| +--rw prefix* [prefix-spec]
| +--rw prefix-spec inet:ipv6-prefix
| +--rw (control-adv-prefixes)?
| +--:(no-advertise)
| +--rw no-advertise? empty
+--rw prefix-list
+--rw prefix* [prefix-spec]
+--rw prefix-spec inet:ipv6-prefix
+--ro valid-lifetime? uint32
+--ro on-link-flag? boolean
+--ro preferred-lifetime? uint32
+--ro autonomous-flag? boolean
Thanks,
Rob
On 18/09/2017 14:55, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
As a co-author,
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Thanks,
Acee
On 9/18/17, 9:48 AM, "Lou Berger" <lber...@labn.net> wrote:
Authors, Contributors, WG,
As part of the preparation for WG Last Call:
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?
Please state either:
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"
If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?
If yes to the above, please state either:
"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
or
"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"
If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
appropriate.
If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next
stage until a response has been received from each author and listed
contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S
TO LINES.
If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed
as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under
the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are
aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from
participating in any contribution or discussion related to your
undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above
and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.
Thank you,
NetMod WG Chairs
PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
response.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
