Dear authors and OPSAWG,
I have a some comments on the ietf-platform-manifest YANG module.
I would suggest to implement the following fields as a grouping within the YANG
module so that YANG developers could use these fields without the need to
implement the whole module.
The idea is only moving these field to a “platform-grouping” and use this
grouping in the list “platform".
+--mp platform* [id]
+--ro id string
+--ro name? string
+--ro vendor? string
+--ro vendor-pen? uint32
+--ro software-version? string
+--ro software-flavor? string
+--ro os-version? string
+--ro os-type? string
I think this set of fields are very useful in plenty of cases and some of them
might not want to include the full YANG-library.
Major comments:
- On the ietf-data-collection-manifest YANG module, wouldn’t we need a node-id
somewhere? How can we distinguish the different subscriptions from different
nodes that use the same platform?
I understand this YANG model as the set of platforms (along with the
subscriptions) that a data collection is collecting from a network. However, in
a network, multiple nodes with the same platform-id could be deployed, and
within these nodes, each could have different subscriptions. Or am I getting
this model wrong?
- I don’t fully understand the presence of XML file after the YANG modules, are
they examples (Sec 3.2 and Sec 4.2)? If so, I would suggest to move them to the
appendix and add a comment “An example of usage is in Appendix XXX”. If not,
maybe add some text to explicit why this XMLs are in these sections.
Minor comments:
- the YANG module copyright is outdated.
- Editorial: I would move Sec 4.3 before 4.2. Seems strange to arrive to
ietf-data-collection-manifest-statistics after getting a view on the YANG tree
from ietf-data-collection-manifest.
Regards,
Alex
> On 27 Nov 2024, at 15:39, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hello, WG (and a Happy Thanksgiving to those of you in the US). With the IPR
> poll concluded (no IPR has been reported), we’d like to kick off a two week
> WG LC on draft-ietf-opsawg-collected-data-manifest
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-collected-data-manifest/>.
>
> Please review this draft and provide comments on-list. If you feel this
> draft is ready for publication, please respond as such on-list. We will kick
> off DIR reviews with OPS and YANG docs to get a couple more eyes on it. We
> are also in need of a shepherd for this document. If you are interested,
> please let the chairs know.
>
> The WG LC will conclude on December 11.
>
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
> To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
> <mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
