Hi Michal, Jean posted a new version of the draft, to address your comments.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang/ Regards, Benoit On 7/11/2022 11:07 AM, Michal Vaško via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Michal Vaško Review result: Ready with Nits The YANG module seems to be in a good state and I only have some points for discussion. - identity names "subservice-idty" and "service-instance-idty" I do not like the abbreviation "idty" and find it confusing. The other identity "dependency-type" is using "type" despite the other 2 base identities being some types, too, so perhaps they can be changed to "subservice-type" and "service-instance", respectively, or some other similar name. If alternative names are not suitable for some reason, I would prefer at least the full form "subservice-identity" and "service-instance-identity". Similarly in the augment modules. - leaf "under-maintenance" and leaf "maintenance-contact" The chosen way to model this functionality was using 2 leaves with a "when" on the second one, which works but may be unnecessarily complex. The simplest way would be to keep only the "maintenance-contact" leaf since its existence can be interpreted as the true/false value of "under-maintenance", with its description mentioning this. .
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
