Hi WG,

I support publication for both the I-Ds. Some minor comments -

==
General:
- I guess the best practice for a section in the reference is "RFC
YYYY: The title, Section X" instead of "Section X of RFC YYYY"
- Both YANG modules could use more references (Example multicast part in L2NM)
==
draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common:
- Not sure about the difference between the identity "sr-mpls" and "sr-te".
- Is there a reference for QinAny? Also, should we use 'QinQ' and
'QinAny' in the description, instead of 'qinq' and 'qinany'?
- Some of the references used in YANG are not listed in Section 9.
Example - IEEE Std 802.1Q, RFC 8453.
==
draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm:
- For leaf vpn-type, should we check that it is set to L3VPN in the YANG?
- For identity provider-dhcp-slaac, should we add if-feature vpn-common:ipv6.
- typedef area-address is not used, yang:dotted-quad is used for isis
which i think is incorrect. I suggest to use isis:area-address for
ISIS and ospf:area-id-type for OSPF for the respective YANG modules.
- Why is the vpn-node-id a union for string or uint32? This is not
done for any other identifier, only vpn-node-id...
- leaf key for BGP
(/l3vpn-ntw/vpn-services/vpn-service/vpn-nodes/vpn-node/vpn-network-accesses/vpn-network-accesse/routing-protocols/routing-protocol/bgp/security/keying-material/key)
has an incorrect description as - "OSPF authentication key."
- Maybe the keying-material should be under NACM?
- s/nontrollers/controllers/g
==

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 7:02 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke)
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello, WG.  One of the action items out of the 110 meeting was to put
> the L3NM (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-07)
> and vpn-common
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-03) documents
> through WG LC.  The authors have said that these can work independently
> from the L2NM document, which is still being revised.
>
> This begins a two-week WG LC for these two documents.  Please provide
> your comments and concerns by April 5, 2021.  Additionally, if anyone is
> interested in acting as shepherd for either of these documents, please
> let the chairs know.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to