Hi Bo,
I think that “limit-number” name makes more sense in the context of the other
peer leaves around it when it is defined under “mac-addr-limit”, i.e., the
“time-interval”, and what action is being taken.
My “no hats” opinion is that I would still go for consistency with the other
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the review and suggestion.
Per the naming of "mac-limit-number", we are considering to be consistent with
L2NM definition:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9291:
| +--rw mac-policies
| | +--rw mac-addr-limit
Hi authors, shepherd,
Thanks for quickly posting a new version of
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm addressing the AD comments during the
IESG review.
The changes all look good to me, except that I question one of the changes that
were made (in response to one of Eric's comments I think):
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 : A YANG Model for Network and VPN Service Performance
Monitoring
Authors : Bo
