Hi Joe,
I support adding an L2NM model to our WG. I would recommend changing the name
to simply "draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm".
Here are my initial comments that I wish the author to address as we move into
WG item:
1) I believe L2NM should not have dependencies on other service definitions
just to import types and instance definitions (L2SM and L3NM in particular for
this draft), as discussed for L3NM, it is best to either write a common type
module or define them locally in every module.
2) I found a difference on how we work in L3NM and consistency between the two
modules would be desired (although not mandatory):
list vpn-node {
key "vpn-node-id ne-id"; <--- In L3NM we only use ne-id
I will be happy to continue providing feedback.
Best regards,
Roque
On 16.06.20, 16:18, "OPSAWG on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke)"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Hello, opsawg. I hope everyone is doing well.
This starts a two-week poll for adoption of the L2 network module document.
There does seem to be interest in this work, and it is progressing nicely in
GitHub with side meetings. There appears to be questions on what will be
broken out into commonality between this module and the L3NM (work which is
also underway). So while we anticipate changes to this draft, the chairs think
it’s reached a point where we’d like to see if the WG wants to formally adopt
the work.
Please reply on-list with your comments on the draft and whether or not you
support its WG adoption. We will conclude this call on June 30, 2020.
Thanks.
Joe
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
