Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-16: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document, and apologies for the delayed review. I have one DISCUSS point, a couple of comments. As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise. I have divided comments into "minor" (including the questions) and "nits". Neither require replies strictly speaking, please feel free to address as you see fit. I will appreciate answers to my questions, to improve my understanding. If any clarification comes out of it, I hope it will help improve the document. Francesca 1. ----- leaf holdtime { type uint32; units "msec"; FP: This might be me not finding the right reference (or little knowledge of YANG), but I was wondering if "msec" was defined somewhere as a unit (note that the description does not mention that the unit is milliseconds either). While doing my due diligence to see if I missed or misunderstood something, I researched the RFCs mentioned in the beginning of the YANG module: This module uses types defined in [RFC6991] and [RFC8343]. It also uses groupings defined in [RFC8519], [RFC8177], and [RFC8294]. And found no use of the "msec" unit. A quick google search shows that RFC 8299 uses it, so there is precedence for it, but I couldn't find its definition from that document either. All the other leaves use "milliseconds" (which is defined in RFC 8294), so my preference would be to have consistency, if "msec" was defined and I just missed it. (Note that a similar remark could be made for "bps" used, which does not appear in the description text, and is also used in RFC 8466, however there is no issue about consistency there). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## Minor 2. ----- 'status': Indicates the status of the OSPF routing instance. FP: Most likely a copy-paste leftover in section 7.6.3.4 should be IS-IS instead of OSPF. 3. ----- Section 7.6.3.5, re timers FP: shouldn't the units be explicitly stated in the timers description text, or are they defined somewhere else? Actually, I can see the unit is specified later on in the YANG module - so my suggestion is to add some simple text in 7.6.3.5 to explicitly say that the timers are in seconds. 4. ----- leaf required-min-rx-interval { FP: I see that RFC 5880 does not specify a default value for this; is there really no default that can be specified here? ## Nits 5. ----- "It is included only when enryption is enabled."; } FP: typo s/enryption/encryption _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
