From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Jean Quilbeuf <[email protected]> Sent: 25 April 2022 18:37
Dear All, This new version of the draft addresses the comments from Tom Petch and Mohamed Boucadair. Thanks again for their reviews. <tp> mmmmm I see a structural problem that I think will confuse users. IANA Considerations (where I start) registers three YANG module which is not fine; the prefix definitions are a nonsense. When I turn to the body of the I-D, which by default is Normative, I find six YANG modules only three of which are in IANA Considerations and so exist. I think that this will confuse. What I see (all?) other authors do is put examples in Appendices which by convention are Informative. Often the explanatory text is there too since it too is mostly or all Informative. I think that at least the three example modules should be in Appendices A. B. C. - I would put them before the sample protocols. Some text likely belongs in the Normative part of the document but only what is Normative, what someone creating an extension SHOULD or MAY or MUST do when creating an extension; details of what to do with a specific extension e.g. OSPF belong in the Appendix IMO. Section 8 should not exist. The IETF has rules about names of IETF and non-IETF work and they should not be here. Rather this I-D should reference those rules, if it needs to; many YANG modules expect vendors to augment them and I cannot recall any other I-D including such guidance. Vendors need to know what they are doing I note in passing The second YANG module, ietf-service-assurance-device, extends The third YANG module, ietf-service-assurance-device, is another Like I said, may cause confusion. Tom Petch Best, Jean > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of internet- > [email protected] > Sent: Monday 25 April 2022 18:32 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang- > 04.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working > Group WG of the IETF. > > Title : YANG Modules for Service Assurance > Authors : Benoit Claise > Jean Quilbeuf > Paolo Lucente > Paolo Fasano > Thangam Arumugam > Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-04.txt > Pages : 45 > Date : 2022-04-25 > > Abstract: > This document specifies YANG modules representing assurance graphs. > These graphs represent the assurance of a given service by > decomposing it into atomic assurance elements called subservices. A > companion RFC, Service Assurance for Intent-based Networking > Architecture, presents an architecture for implementing the assurance > of such services. > > The YANG data models in this document conforms to the Network > Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang/ > > There is also an htmlized version available at: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-04 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-04 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
