Hi Yingzhen, Thanks for your reply, snipping to the open items -
> > You're correct that SRv6 YANG should be augmenting segment-routing like > sr-mpls. This was the agreement between SRv6 and SR-MPLS YANG authors. > Hopefully SRv6 YANG authors will update so in the next revision. > I would also encourage you to consider adding some high-level text describing the relationship between the 3 modules defined in this I-D and your guidance for SRv6-Yang. A figure could also be quite useful. > - Can we rename ipv4-sid and ipv6-sid to ipv4-prefix-sid and > ipv6-prefix-sid respectively? > [YQ]: not sure whether there are other modules using these groupings. Will > check to make sure not breaking other YANG modules importing it. > I looked in the IGP SR Yang I-Ds as well as searched in the https://www.yangcatalog.org/ and found nothing. More importantly, it is normal for other YANG modules to be updated in such a case. > - It could be useful to add a description of why ERLD is read-only > in the YANG. > [YQ]: ERLD? > Entropy capable Readable Label Depth - the node-capabilities, and entropy-readable-label-depth below marked as "ro" module: ietf-segment-routing-mpls augment /rt:routing/sr:segment-routing: +--rw sr-mpls +--ro node-capabilities | +--ro entropy-readable-label-depth? uint8 +--rw msd {max-sid-depth}? > - Can the ISIS YANG typedef be used instead of redefining the > system-id in SR yang. > [YQ]: ISIS-SR YANG will be importing both SR-MPLS and ISIS YANG, so the > typedef from ISIS YANG can't be reused since it will cause circular reference. > That is not true! Notice the arrows in - https://sketchboard.me/NCeua6qrZBzV Also, I made the change in my local copy, and all 3 yang models compile cleanly! > - 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 > > [YQ]: Do you mean the policy in mapping server? Which is a string. > Yes, I assume this policy is the same as - /rt:routing/sr:segment-routing:/sr-mpls/bindings/mapping-server/policy/name and thus wondering why not a leafref? If this policy is different please add more text explaining it. > - 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. > [YQ]: this is intended. > Please consider adding some descriptive text around this. Thanks! Dhruv _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
