Hi Sheng /Med, @Sheng, Thanks for the review. @Med, Thanks for the quick update.
A couple of other things: There’s an outstanding comment on model element descriptions given as “…”. Proposed new text: notification softwire-binding-instance-event description: "The ID of the binding-instance that generated the notification."; leaf-list modified-entry description "The ID of the the binding-table entry that has been modified."; ------ I just did a quick read through of -05. There are a few small language cleanups that I would like to make: Section 2.1 s/Provides configuration and monitoring for softwire CE element/Provides configuration and monitoring for the softwire CE element/ s/Provides configuration and monitoring for softwire BR element/Provides configuration and monitoring for the softwire BR element/ Section 2.2 s/be imported here, as needed/be imported, as needed/ ietf-softwire-ce:binding-entry/br-ipv6-addr description s/The IPv6 address for of the binding BR./The IPv6 address for the binding BR./ ietf-softwire-br:br-instances/algorithm description s/Indicate that the instance supports the MAP-E and MAP-T functions./Indicate that the instance supports the MAP-E and MAP-T functions./ If there’s no objection to the above changes, I’ll update and post later on today. Cheers, Ian > On 27. Jun 2018, at 10:54, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Sheng, > > Many thanks for the careful review. > > An updated version which integrates your comments is available > online:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-yang/?include_text=1 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-yang/?include_text=1> > > See more inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > De : Softwires [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org > <mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org>] De la part de Sheng Jiang > Envoyé : mercredi 27 juin 2018 06:00 > À : Softwires WG > Cc : softwire-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:softwire-cha...@ietf.org> > Objet : Re: [Softwires] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04 as Standard > Track, closed by 27 June 2018 > > As the document shepherd, I have reviewed this document.. Document editors > and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. In general, I think this document is in a good shape. The YANG > model is well defined and clearly described. > Here are some minor issues, mostly editorial, although there is 1 error > report by the IETF Yang validation tool. It should be easy to be fixed, I > believe > > [Med] As you can see in > https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/softwire-yang-validation.pdf > > <https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/softwire-yang-validation.pdf>, > the module passes validation. The issue displayed by the tracker is related > to iana-if-t...@2018-06-22.yang > <http://www.yangvalidator.com/validator#iana-if-type>. > > There are some minor comments below, most of them are editorial. > > Section 2.1 > It may be better to add the statement names in the description of choice > statement: > a choice statement 'ce-type' is included for ... > a choice statement 'data-plane' is included to .... > > [Med] Fixed. > > "For each module, a choice statement is included for either 'binding' or > 'algorithmic'." > But in Table 1 it is 'algorithm'. Maybe 'algorithmic' should be changed to > 'algorithm'. > > [Med] Good catch. Fixed. > > > Section 2.2 > The reference to Appendix A.3 should be Appendix A > > [Med] Citing Appendix A.3 is on purpose. It is where NAT and RFC8349 examples > are provided. > > > Section 3.1 > "for all of the softwire mechanisms listed in Section 1" > It may be bette to avoid self citation and just list the mechanisms here. > > [Med] OK. > > > "Figure 1 describes the tree structure of the CE softwire YANG module" > It's better to unify the terminology as "Softwire CE YANG Module" > > [Med] OK. > > > Section 3.2 > In the paragraph of "softwire-path-mru:": > It's confusing here whether the MRU is for IPv4 or IPv6.. > > [Med] The text indicates “to set the maximum IPv6 softwire packet size”. > Furthermore, the description “The path MRU for the softwire (payload + > encapsulation > overhead)” is also clear about the usage. I don’t think a change is > required. > > There are two "br-ipv6-addr" defined. It may be better to add different > prefixes or suffixes into the names, but I'm also OK with the current names.. > [Med] We could add map or lw prefixes, but as you know adding prefixes is not > helpful (and it even not recommended) as a leaf is identified by its parent. > I suggest to leave those unmodified. > > In the paragraph of "ce-binding-ipv6-addr-change:": > "binding-ipv6-address" is not defined in the whole document. It should be > explained. > > [Med] changed to “binding IPv6 address” > > Section 4.2 > "in Figure 1" > should be "in Section 3.2" > > [Med] OK. > > > "for logging/data retention purposes" -> "for logging or data retention > purposes" > [Med] OK. > > "between 3-tuples, which contains the lwB4's IPv6 address..." -> "between > 3-tuples: the lwB4's IPv6 address..." > [Med] Changed to “3-tuples {lwB4's IPv6 address/prefix, the allocated IPv4 > address, restricted port-set}” > > > "softwire-num-threshold" > From the description, I think it may be better to rename it to > "softwire-num-max". > [Med] Makes sense. > > In the paratraph of "invalid-entry, added-entry, modified-entry:": > "the client" -> "the NETCONF client" > > [Med] OK. > > Appendix A.1 > "lwB4 IPv6 Address: 123" > What's the "lwB4 IPv6 Address" here? > [Med] Oops. This should be PSID. > > > Appendix A.2 > "for the clients" -> "for the CEs" > [Med] Done. > > > Appendix A.3 > The same "lwB4 IPv6 Address" issue > And the PSID and PSID offset should be provided in the example. > [Med] Idem as above. Should s/lwB4 IPv6 Address/PSID. > > > Cheers, > > Sheng > > From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:44 PM > To: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org> > Cc: softwire-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: [Softwires] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04 as Standard Track, > closed by 27 June 2018 > > This email announces a Softwire Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on: > > Since both chairs of softwire WG are the co-authors of this document. I am > now acting as the document shepherd for this draft. > > YANG Modules for IPv4-in-IPv6 Address plus Port Softwires > draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04> > > This draft is intended to become a Standard Track RFC. > > This WGLC will run through the end of the day on Wednesday, June 27, 2018. > > Comments should be sent to the softwires@ietf.org <mailto:softwires@ietf.org> > list, although purely > editorial comments may be sent directly to the author. > > No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on > draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04 > > Regards and thanks, > > Sheng Jiang (document shepherd) > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org <mailto:Softwires@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
