Reshad, this looks good. You proabably also want to update references to point to the RFCs that just recently appeared:
- replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] with [RFC8340] - replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] with [RFC8342] - replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis] with [RFC8344] /js On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:06:27PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > Thanks again for the excellent review. We've just published rev12 to address > your latest comments. > > Please see inline. > > Regards, > Reshad. > > On 2018-03-13, 10:58 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 02:12:30PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > > > > We have made the changes in revs 10 and 11 to address your comments . > The exception is module ietf-bfd-types which did not get renamed per reason > below. > > > > Hi, > > here is my re-review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang. I think the document has > significantly improved since the -09 version, the authors have done an > excellent job to improve the document quality. > > I have mostly a few minor mostly editorial issues left, except the > first one, which concerns the schema mount use case. > > - Thanks for clarifying that the modules can be used on standalone > devices. The new text is helpful. > > For the LNE and NI use cases, does it make sense to detail the mount > points that are used? My understanding is that schema mount requires > that mount points are identified with a "mount-point" extension > statement, i.e., you can't mount at arbitrary places in the > hierarchy but only at places that have been designated as mount > points. > > That all said, since your YANG modules are basically augmenting > other YANG modules that may be mounted, you do not seem to need a > separate schema mount. If my understanding is correct, then here is > a starting point for making this clearer: > > OLD > > When used at the network device level, the BFD YANG model is used > "as-is". When the BFD model is to be used in a Logical Network > Element or in a Network Instance, the approach taken is to do a > schema-mount (see Schema Mount [I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount]) of the > BFD model in the appropriate location. For example, if an > implementation supports BFD IP multihop in network instances, the > implementation would do schema-mount of the BFD IP multihop model in > a mount-point which resides in a network instance. > > NEW > > When used at the network device level, the BFD YANG model are used > "as-is". When the BFD YANG model is used in a Logical Network > Element or in a Network Instance, then the BFD YANG model augments > the mounted routing model for the Logical Network Element or the > Network Instance. > > Note that with this change, you also do not need a reference to > schema mount. > <RR> Done. > > - Since the different use cases (device, LNE, NI) are discussed right > at the beginning of Section 2, it seems the following statements in > Sections 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 are not really needed: > > The "bfd" node under control-plane- > protocol can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in > an LNE or in a network instance. > > The "ip-sh" node can be used > in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an LNE or in a network > instance. > > The "ip-mh" > node can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an > LNE or in a network instance. > > The "lag" node can be used in a network > device (top-level), or mounted in an LNE or in a network instance. > > The "mpls" > node can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an > LNE or in a network instance. > <RR> Done > > - The text at the beginning of Section 2.13 should also mention RFC > 8177 since you are importing it. > <RR> Done > > - It might be useful to give more explicit instructions to IANA. I > assume you want IANA to update the iana-bfd-types module whenever > changes are made to the "BFD Diagnostic Codes" registry and "BFD > Authentication Types" registries. Giving clear instructions what > IANA is expected to do and when is better than a soft statement such > as "intended to reflect". But IANA is going to ask questions about > this anyway during their review I assume. > <RR> Updated 5.1 > > - The feature definitions in ietf-bfd-types have text of the form "as > defined in RFC 5880" and perhaps it makes sense to add reference > statements to these feature definitions. There are also a number of > identities that say "as per RFC 588X" where perhaps reference > statements should be added. > <RR> Added reference sections to the feature definitions and identities. > > - The text at the beginning of Section 2.13 should also mention RFC > 6991 since you are importing it. And you are also importing from > RFC XXXX (the routing model). > <RR> 2.13 already mentions RFC 6991 but it was missing from 2.15 and 2.17 > (it's been added). 2.13 already has mention of 8022bis (routing model). > 8022bis is now rfc8349. > > - The text at the beginning of Section 2.16 should also mention > that you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model). > <RR> We now mention rfc8349 (8022bis). > > - The text at the beginning of Section 2.17 should also mention that > you import from RFC 6991 and from RFC XXXX (the routing model). > <RR> Added mention of RFC6991. > > - The text at the beginning of Section 2.18 should also mention that > you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model). > <RR> We now mention rfc8349 (8022bis). > > - The text at the beginning of Section 2.19 should also mention that > you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model). > <RR> We now mention rfc8349 (8022bis). > > - I have not validated the examples - I hope the authors have done so. > They look more plausible than in the previous version I reviewed. > <RR> Yes we have validated them using yanglint. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > > Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:05:36 -0700 > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com>, Reshad Rahman > <rrah...@cisco.com>, Juniper Networks <santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>, > Gregory Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>, Greg Mirsky > <gregimir...@gmail.com>, Santosh Pallagatti > <santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>, Lianshu Zheng <vero.zh...@huawei.com> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt > Message-ID: <152155113615.9798.6292162729217739657.idtrac...@ietfa.amsl.com> > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt > has been successfully submitted by Reshad Rahman and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-bfd-yang > Revision: 12 > Title: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection > (BFD) > Document date: 2018-03-20 > Group: bfd > Pages: 74 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12 > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang > Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12 > > Abstract: > This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure > and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD). > > The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management > Datastore Architecture (NMDA). > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
