On 10/28/21 08:38, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Hi Julian,
Moving the discussion to the list to have more eyes from the WG on this particular point: “But I would urge you to change the terminology to "PE-to-CE-bandwidth" /"CE-to-PE-bandwidth" to make it super-explicit, the current terminology has been causing endless confusion to implementers (I realise it's inherited from the service models, but changing the terminology in LXNM would cure the problem well)” All, Julian raised early this week a comment about an L2NM terminology we are inheriting from the service model. The full context of this discussion can be seen at: https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/lxnm/issues/353. As a contributor, reading the current draft text in conjunction with the YANG model description, I agree with Julian. It's confusing. Typo aside, I had to jump back and forth a couple of times to grok things correctly. Aligning the terminology in the module with text in Section 7.6.4 in terms of CE vs. PE and direction would help. Joe Cheers, Med De : julianL999 <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Envoyé : mercredi 27 octobre 2021 17:46 À : IETF-OPSAWG-WG/lxnm <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Comment <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Objet : Re: [IETF-OPSAWG-WG/lxnm] inbound/outbound terminology (Issue #353) Hi Med In https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-09 it says as follows, maybe it is a typo? container svc-outbound-bandwidth { if-feature "vpn-common:outbound-bw"; description "From the PE perspective, the service outbound bandwidth of the connection."; But I would urge you to change the terminology to "PE-to-CE-bandwidth" /"CE-to-PE-bandwidth" to make it super-explicit, the current terminology has been causing endless confusion to implementers (I realise it's inherited from the service models, but changing the terminology in LXNM would cure the problem well) — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/lxnm/issues/353#issuecomment-953059202>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADXR6VZSFIYRMPT32WGNE3DUJAUFNANCNFSM5GXLDWMQ>. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
