Hi Med, Thanks for considering my comments.
> - This text > > > > To avoid the issues discussed above, this document defines a common > > YANG module that is meant to be reused by various VPN-related > > modules > > such as Layer 3 VPN Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8299], Layer 2 VPN > > Service Model (L2SM) [RFC8466], Layer 3 VPN Network Model (L3NM) > > [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm], and Layer 2 VPN Network Model (L2NM) > > [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l2nm]: "ietf-vpn-common" (Section 4). > > > > While it is clear how this common model can be used by work-in- > > progress L3NM and L2NM models, I am not sure about the published > > service model. Maybe you want to suggest that a future update of these > > service models MAY use this common model? If yes, better to be > > explicit. > > > > [Med] What about: > > OLD: > To avoid the issues discussed above, this document defines a common > YANG module that is meant to be reused by various VPN-related modules > such as Layer 3 VPN Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8299], Layer 2 VPN > Service Model (L2SM) [RFC8466], Layer 3 VPN Network Model (L3NM) > [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm], and Layer 2 VPN Network Model (L2NM) > [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l2nm]: "ietf-vpn-common" (Section 4). > > The "ietf-vpn-common" module includes a set of identities, types, and > groupings that are meant to be reused by other VPN-related YANG > modules independently of their layer (e.g., Layer 2, Layer 3) and the > type of the module (e.g., network model, service model) including > future revisions of existing models (e.g., L3SM [RFC8299] or L3SM > [RFC8466]). > > NEW: > To avoid the issues discussed above, this document defines a common > YANG module that is meant to be reused by various VPN-related modules > such as Layer 3 VPN Network Model (L3NM) [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm] > and Layer 2 VPN Network Model (L2NM)[I-D.ietf-opsawg-l2nm]: > "ietf-vpn-common" (Section 4). > > The "ietf-vpn-common" module includes a set of identities, types, and > groupings that are meant to be reused by other VPN-related YANG > modules independently of their layer (e.g., Layer 2, Layer 3) and the > type of the module (e.g., network model, service model) including > future revisions of existing models (e.g., Layer 3 VPN Service Model > (L3SM) [RFC8299] or Layer 2 VPN Service Model (L2SM) [RFC8466]). > Would you also consider adding the word "possible" in front of "future revisions of existing models" in the last sentence to highlight the fact that no such revision is planned as of now. Thanks! Dhruv
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
