Hi Tom, See a couple responses inline enclosed in <acee> and </acee>. We are addressing the rest of your comments.
On 11/18/20, 7:39 AM, "tom petch" <[email protected]> wrote: IANA Considerations does not register the module names used in the modules <acee> This is in the IANA considerations... This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]. name: ietf-segment-routing-common namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-segment-routing-common prefix: sr-cmn reference: RFC XXXX name: ietf-segment-routing namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-segment-routing prefix: sr reference: RFC XXXX name: ietf-segment-routing namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-segment-routing-mpls prefix: sr-mpls reference: RFC XXXX </acee> Examples are IPv4 only, IPv6 would be good BGP is included when it comes to defining a router-id but is ignored everywhere else, such as signalling MSD, protocol extensions etc reference "RFC XXXX" would be improved by including the title in all cases not just some the scheme http: appears in many places. It would be lovely if this really was the scheme but I fear that it is not <acee> This is directly from the RFC 8407 template in Appendix B. What would you suggest? </acee> module srcmn the upper bound must be larger the value must be greater consistency is good - I think greater is better 8.3 operation states usually operational two imports lack references typedef router-id this is a well known type from RFC8394; it seems likely to confuse to redefine it with a related but different meaning leaf enabled enables protocol extensions which protocols? leaf protected it is used to protect how does it do that:-) enum dual ... In this case will be advertised with backup flag set What is the backup flag? It does not feature in RFC8660. Needs an explanation and reference container link-msd list link-msds leaf msd The usual YANG convention is for a list to be plural and the leaf singular. You have the plural list but not the leaf. <acee> So you are asking for a change from "leaf msd" to "leaf link-msd"? </acee> And who needs the container? This is mpls not a common module that might be augmented so what does the container give apart from complexity? list policy leaf string YANG string caters for very large items of very complex character sets. Is that desirable? <acee> IETF models normally do not limit identifiers. An individual implementation could do this with a deviation. </acee> Thanks, Acee leaf used will used plus free equal size? Indicates if the binding is /instal/installed/ notification-segment-routing-global-srgb-collision a mix of conflict and collision; consistency is good and I prefer the latter which is the name of the notification containing /s/a/ mapping ... sid collision again consistency good, prefer collision to conflicting s.9 I would have thought the srgb worthy of mention under sensitive nodes Tom Petch On 16/11/2020 19:32, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the Source Packet Routing in Networking > WG (spring) to consider the following document: - 'YANG Data Model for > Segment Routing' > <draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-23.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > [email protected] mailing lists by 2020-11-30. Exceptionally, comments may > be sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning > of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > This document defines a YANG data model for segment routing > configuration and operation, which is to be augmented by different > segment routing data planes. The document also defines a YANG model > that is intended to be used on network elements to configure or > operate segment routing MPLS data plane, as well as some generic > containers to be reused by IGP protocol modules to support segment > routing. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang/ > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > . > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
