Hi WG, I guess it is still 7th in some part of the earth and hoping I am not too late :)
I find it weird that the SRv6 Yang [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-spring-srv6-yang-05] does not use/augment ietf-segment-routing or ietf-segment-routing-common. A sync up between these modules will be useful to understand the overall design! A section describing this would also be quite useful. Few comments - - Avoid references in Abstract, See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.3 Similarly, the Abstract should be complete in itself. It will appear in isolation in publication announcements and in the online index of RFCs. Therefore, the Abstract must not contain citations. You could replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents. Also, the use of SHOULD in the abstract does not seem right. - Section 4, you say - The sr-mpls configuration is split in global configuration and interface configuration. But there is no interface configuration mentioned. s/lcoal/local/ - Section 5.1.1.1, you should remove this - This section is a first proposal on how to use S-bit in Adj-SID to create bundles. Authors would like to trigger discussion based on this first proposal. Please also add references for S-bit and B-Flag etc - Section 8 - The yang model lacks a "reference" statement when importing external modules or designing key concepts. They are useful while reviewing. - Can we rename ipv4-sid and ipv6-sid to ipv4-prefix-sid and ipv6-prefix-sid respectively? - It could be useful to add a description of why ERLD is read-only in the YANG. - Why is the grouping srgb defined in ietf-segment-routing-common, but the feature protocol-srgb is in ietf-segment-routing-mpls? - Can the ISIS YANG typedef be used instead of redefining the system-id in SR yang. - In the grouping sr-controlplane, is it not better to have a reference to the policy rather than a string? +--rw segment-routing | +--rw enabled? boolean | +--rw bindings | +--rw advertise | | +--rw policies* string | +--rw receive? boolean - Target is defined as a string in the yang. You do say that they are IPv4/IPv6 prefix in the context of the I-D. I want to confirm that the string is the right choice in such a case. - Section 11, ietf-segment-routing-mpls is missing from IANA section Thanks! Dhruv On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:29 PM James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > > Dear SPRING WG: > > > > This email starts a two week WG LC for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang/. > > > > Substantive comments should be directed to the mailing list no later than > July 7th. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Jim, Joel & Bruno > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
