Thanks for the update and taking my comments into consideration!

On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 9:42 AM maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi, Dhruv,
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your comments, the authors have submitted a new version
> to address them:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-01.
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-01>
> Please also see my reply inline…
>
>
>
> *From:* netmod [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Dhruv Dhody
> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2024 6:20 PM
> *To:* Kent Watsen <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] Adoption call for draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang-04
>
>
>
> Hi Kent,
>
> Support adoption!
>
> A few comments/nits for the authors to consider...
>
> - In the abstract, I was not sure how to parse "..scheduling information
> such as event, policy, services, or resources..", are these examples well
> known and established as scheduling information?
>
> [Qiufang]Actually, the schedule YANG module is intended to serve as common
> building blocks for any scheduling context based on date and time, which
> should have broad applicability without limiting to scheduled events,
> policies, services, resources, etc. The word “information” might be vague,
> the authors have used “purposes”, i.e., “This document defines a common
> schedule YANG module which is designed to be applicable for scheduling
> purposes such as event, policy, services, or resources based on date and
> time.” Would this be better? Otherwise, please feel free to propose text at
> https://github.com/netmod-wg/schedule-yang.
>
> - The introduction made sense as a motivation for the document initially,
> but it should be rephrased esp that the referenced modules are expected to
> be updated to use this common module going forward. You may create an
> appendix with this historical context if needed.
>
> [Qiufang] Agree.  The authors have rephrased the introduction section.
> Some of the relevant description now as follows:
>
> “This document defines a common schedule YANG module ("ietf-schedule")
> that can be used in several scheduling contexts, e.g., (but not limited
> to) [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl
> <https://netmod-wg.github.io/schedule-yang/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang.html#I-D.ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl>
> ], [I-D.contreras-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests
> <https://netmod-wg.github.io/schedule-yang/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang.html#I-D.contreras-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests>],
> and [I-D.ietf-tvr-schedule-yang
> <https://netmod-wg.github.io/schedule-yang/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang.html#I-D.ietf-tvr-schedule-yang>
> ].”
>
> Would this be okay for you?
>           - Section 3.1, the description is a bit sparse; also there are
> no examples that use this grouping. Please expand.
>
> [Qiufang] The description is now expanded in section 3.1, and the example
> that uses this grouping is now added as appendix A.1.
>
> - The description inside the YANG module is old and incorrect, it says 2
> groupings and focused only on iCalendar.
>
> [Qiufang] Fixed now. thanks.
>
> - s/RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Scheduling/RFC XXXX: A Common YANG
> Data Model for Scheduling/
>
> [Qiufang] Fixed.
>
> - for discard-action, is there a possibility for creating new actions in
> future or these two are the only ones? I am asking to make sure that the
> choice of modeling this as enum is correct or not.
>
> [Qiufang] The latest version has used identityref to not restrict any
> future actions being defined. Thanks.
>
> - In these lists "leaf-list date-times" and "leaf-list dates", is there
> any ordering constraint that should be added explicitly in text?
>
> [Qiufang] Note that we simplify the definition now and remove the
> leaf-list date-times and dates definition, but we do have the list period
> and period-timeticks, once valid entries are added, they will work as
> repeating occurrences, regardless of ordering. Make sense?
>
> - Section 3.4 needs more descriptive text for period and timeticks. The
> yang module has a long must statement for verification that should be
> explained here in text.
>
> [Qiufang] The period and timeticks are now defined in 2 groupings to
> facilitate human readability and machine readability in section 3.6 and
> section 3.7, respectively. Some explanations are also added. Please review
> it and let us know if you still think it unclear.
>
> - Section 3.5 needs more descriptive text for by* leaves -> "An array of
> the "bysecond" (or "byminut", "byhour") specifies a list of seconds within
> a minute (or minutes within an hour, hours of the day)." The examples in
> the appendix gave some hints but the description should be clearer.
>
> [Qiufang] Sure, some examples have been given in the descriptive text to
> help understand the parameters, which is now in Section 3.8. Please let us
> know if you still think it unclear.
>
> - s/byminut/byminute/
>
> [Qiufang] Fixed.
>           - Appendix A.1, the text says end date is Dec 31, 2027 but the
> JSON says 1st Dec - "2027-12-01T18:00:00Z"
>
> [Qiufang] Good catch! Fixed now.
>           - Appendix A.2, the text says Dec 1, 2025 but the example says
> 1st Nov - "2025-11-01T15:00:00"
>
> [Qiufang] Fixed! Thanks a lot.
>
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Qiufang
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 9:20 PM Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> NETMOD WG,
>
> This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:
>
>         A Common YANG Data Model for Scheduling
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang
>
>         PS: This draft moved from OPSAWG to NETMOD
>
> There is no known IPR on this draft:
>
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/mg1KP3m6bCSXh-3N-YKLvEb_udk/
>
> Please voice your support or technical objections to adoption on the list
> by the end of the day Apr 10 (any time zone).
>
> Thank you,
> Kent (as co-chair)
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to