Hi Don, Thanks for accommodating my suggestions. I've cleared my discuss.
Regards. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Fedyk <dfe...@labn.net> > Sent: 31 August 2022 13:50 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-ip...@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org; > ipsec@ietf.org; kivi...@iki.fi > Subject: RE: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-09: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Hi Rob > > I have posted the -10 version that addresses all the points you brought up. > > Thanks > Don > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 10:18 AM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-ip...@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org; > ipsec@ietf.org; kivi...@iki.fi; kivi...@iki.fi > Subject: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-09: (with > DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-09: 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-ipsecme-yang-iptfs/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi Chris, Don, > > This YANG module and document looks good to me. > > The one discuss issue that I wanted to check on the commented out when > statements, e.g., > > uses ipsec-tx-stat-grouping { > //when "direction = 'outbound'"; > } > > Are these when statement meant to just be descriptive? If so, then writing > them in plain English is probably better. Or otherwise, can they just be > removed from the module, or is there another plan? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In the YANG module, for l2-fixed-rate and l3-fixed-rate, did you consider > using > yang:gauge64 instead of yang:counter64? This would seem the more natural > choice to me. > > As a minor nit, adding YANG units statements for the counter definitions > would > probably be helpful, probably copying the usage of units in RFC 8343, e.g., > using units "bits/second" instead of "bps", etc. > > Thanks, > Rob > > _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
