Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-18: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-l2nm/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the effort to produce this YANG model, I always fascinate by the work done in creating the YANG models. I have found inconsistencies in the classification of normative references and informative references, hence, would like to discuss those. Some examples below- - in the terminology section while [RFC6241], [RFC7950], [RFC8466], [RFC4026], and [RFC8309] are normative references, [RFC8969] and [RFC8340] are not. But clearly this document uses terms defined in those documents and I as a reader had to open those RFCs to understand what the terms are and without that I would not be possible to understand this document. - sometimes the this document is correctly referring to other documents as normative, as terms or processes are defines there but sometimes it is not. for example - 'signaling-option': Indicates a set of signaling options that are specific to a given VPN network access, e.g., a CE ID ('ce-id' identifying the CE within the VPN) and a remote CE ID as discussed in Section 2.2.2 of [RFC6624]. Now, without understanding what is discussed or defined in RFC6624 it was hard for me to understand the node/leaf mentioned in this document. Thus, I felt RFCC6624 should be a normative reference but it was not. - The reference modules from this document cannot be informative reference, can they? For example in section 8.1 it says - This module references [RFC3032], [RFC4446], [RFC4448], [RFC4553], [RFC4618], [RFC4619], [RFC4717], [RFC4761], [RFC4816], [RFC4842], and [RFC5086]. however, RFC4842 and RFC5086 is informative reference. I would say, please go through the document and correctly categorise all the references. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
