Hi Med, Thanks for the review and comments.
- There is a disconnect between the types used in existing topology/interface models and the TVR one. Do you mean the model is not augmenting existing models? If so, that's done on purpose so we don't create dependencies to existing models. - Are there cases where the same schedule will be used by multiple interfaces/nodes? If so, consider factorizing and only have a reference to that same schedule rather that defining it for each interface/node. Are you suggesting for example we define a list of schedules with IDs, then under each interface/node use the IDs to reference the schedules? It's possible there might be multiple interfaces using the same schedule, however the attributes such as bandwidth may not be the same. The current design is simpler. Other editorial suggestions I will fix in the next version of the draft after the datatracker opens. Thanks, Yingzhen On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 3:00 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Authors, all, > > > > As part of our effort to check that the NETMOD Common Schedule module > (draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang) common basis set for target uses, I > reviewed all the I-Ds that use draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang. The review > also focuses on whether the grouping are used as intended and if some of > the existing groupings makes sense for a specific context. > > > > Great to see that the new revision uses the utc grouping that we created > as an outcome of the IETF#119 TVR discussion. > > > > I didn’t flagged any major issue related to the use of the common > structures. The narrative text should be updated to redirect the readers to > the common spec for more details about the period/recurrence data nodes. > That’s an easy to fix thing. > > > > One open question though, is whether you considered to graft the state > grouping to the TVR modules (e.g. track failure of triggered actions, > invocation counters, etc.). > > > > The review below includes a more detailed list of open questions, but I’m > providing here main ones: > > - There is a disconnect between the types used in existing > topology/interface models and the TVR one. > - Are there cases where the same schedule will be used by multiple > interfaces/nodes? If so, consider factorizing and only have a reference to > that same schedule rather that defining it for each interface/node. > > > > FWIW, my detailed review of draft-ietf-tvr-schedule-yang can be found at: > > > > > - pdf: > > https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2024/draft-ietf-tvr-schedule-yang-01-rev%20Med.pdf > - doc: > > https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/2024/draft-ietf-tvr-schedule-yang-01-rev%20Med.doc > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > Orange Restricted > > > > Orange Restricted > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
