Hi Tom, Thank you for the careful review.
Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : t.petch [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : mercredi 7 février 2018 13:01 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > Cc : [email protected]; [email protected] > Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-10 > > While you are at it, you might like to note > > s1.1 > / A NAPT my use /A NAPT may use / [Med] Fixed. > > feature siit { > description > ...... > The translator must support the stateless address mapping > algorithm defined in RFC6052, which is the default behavior."; > reference > "RFC 7915: IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm"; > > If the algorithm in RFC6052 must be supported, I would expect this to > appear in the Reference clause > [Med] RFC6052 is not cited because it is already listed as a normative reference in "RFC 7915: IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm". I thought this is redundant. No? > list nat64-prefixes { > ..... > Destination-based Pref64::/n is discussed in > Section 5.1 of [RFC7050]). For example: > 192.0.2.0/24 is mapped to 2001:db8:122:300::/56. > 198.51.100.0/24 is mapped to 2001:db8:122::/48."; > reference > "Section 5.1 of RFC7050."; > > I see no RFC7050 in the Reference section of the I-D [Med] Fixed. What is strange, is that when I run idnits, I do have this error: Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC7050' is defined on line 3585, but no explicit reference was found in the text '[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of...' It seems that idnits does not look at the citations in the YANG module. I made this change to cite that RFC outside the YANG module: OLD: o Stateful NAT64 NEW: o Stateful NAT64 (including with destination-based Pref64::/n RFC7050]) > > leaf logging-enable { > .... > reference > "Section 2.3 of RFC 6908 and REQ-12 of RFC6888."; > } > > I see no RFC6908 in the Reference section of the I-D > [Med] Fixed. Thanks. Idem as above. I made this change to make idnits happy: OLD: This YANG module allows to instruct a NAT function to enable the logging feature. NEW: This YANG module allows to instruct a NAT function to enable the logging feature (Section 2.3 of [RFC6908] and REQ-12 of [RFC6888]). > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email protected]> > To: "Joe Clarke" <[email protected]>; "Tim Chown" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 8:14 AM > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Opsdir early review of > draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-10 > > > > Hi Joe, all, > > > > Thanks. Lets' then go that path. > > > > A new version which addresses the comments from Tim (remove the NPTv6 > part + some minor edits) is available at: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang/?include_tex > t=1 > > > > Tim, thank you for identifying this issue at this stage of the > publication process. > > > > One logistic question for the NPTv6 document, though: Should it be > published (1) as draft-ietf-ospawg-* given that its content was part of > the document that was accepted by the WG and that passed the WGLC or (2) > as an individual document that will be handed to the AD together with > draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang? > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
