[i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-04

[Ladislav Lhotka]

Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka
Review result: Ready

This draft and YANG modules contained therein fit into the framework of I2RS
network topology models. I have no substantial comments, from the YANG point of
view this document is ready to be published.

Comments and questions:

1. What is the purpose of the 'flag-type' type and 'flag-identity' identity?
There are no identities derived from the latter.

2. Some descriptions overuse capitalization. For example, instead of 'VLAN
Name' I would suggest 'VLAN name'.

3. An example of an instance document in an appendix would be very helpful.

[Dongjie (Jimmy)]

Hi Lada,

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 9:32 PM
Subject: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-04
Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka
Review result: Ready
This draft and YANG modules contained therein fit into the framework of I2RS
network topology models. I have no substantial comments, from the YANG point
of view this document is ready to be published.
1. What is the purpose of the 'flag-type' type and 'flag-identity' identity?
There are no identities derived from the latter.

...

The "flag-type" type is used in the grouping "l2-network-attributes", "l2-node-attributes" and "l2-link-attributes".

While there is no identities derived from the "flag-identity", it is used in the typedef flag-type. Is this OK?

2. Some descriptions overuse capitalization. For example, instead of 'VLAN Name'
I would suggest 'VLAN name'.

Thanks for catching this. Will fix in next revision.

3. An example of an instance document in an appendix would be very helpful.

Thanks for your suggestion. We will add an example to the appendix.

Best regards,
Jie

[Ladislav Lhotka]

Post by Dongjie (Jimmy)
Hi Lada,

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 9:32 PM
Subject: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-
topology-04
Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka
Review result: Ready
This draft and YANG modules contained therein fit into the framework of I2RS
network topology models. I have no substantial comments, from the YANG point
of view this document is ready to be published.
1. What is the purpose of the 'flag-type' type and 'flag-identity' identity?
There are no identities derived from the latter.

The "flag-type" type is used in the grouping "l2-network-attributes", "l2-
node-attributes" and "l2-link-attributes".
While there is no identities derived from the "flag-identity", it is used in
the typedef flag-type. Is this OK?
From the YANG point of view it is certainly OK. Do you expect other modules to

...

define identities derived from "flag-identity"?

Post by Dongjie (Jimmy)

2. Some descriptions overuse capitalization. For example, instead of 'VLAN Name'
I would suggest 'VLAN name'.

Thanks for catching this. Will fix in next revision.

3. An example of an instance document in an appendix would be very helpful.

Thanks for your suggestion. We will add an example to the appendix.

Thanks, Lada

Post by Dongjie (Jimmy)
Best regards,
Jie

[Susan Hares]

Jie and Lada:

I've recently listened to the I2RS meeting in IETF 101.

Chris Hopps asked about the notifications in L2. He was asking about a more
general use of the notification that might be useful in the

I'm not really sure how to approach responding to his operational request -
since it really impacts all topology models. My inclination is to push this
draft through into RFC usage, and then to work through a "-bis"
functionality.

Jie - would you ask the individuals pushing for L2 model if that works for
them.

Lada - would you ask the Yang doctors if this is the right approach to take.
Of course, this might be easier if we had versioning instead of a model name
change.

Sue Hares
-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dongjie (Jimmy)
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 10:09 PM
To: Ladislav Lhotka; yang-***@ietf.org
Cc: ***@ietf.org; ***@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-***@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-04

Hi Lada,

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 9:32 PM
Subject: Yangdoctors early review of
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-04
Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka
Review result: Ready
This draft and YANG modules contained therein fit into the framework
of I2RS network topology models. I have no substantial comments, from
the YANG point of view this document is ready to be published.
1. What is the purpose of the 'flag-type' type and 'flag-identity' identity?
There are no identities derived from the latter.

...

The "flag-type" type is used in the grouping "l2-network-attributes",
"l2-node-attributes" and "l2-link-attributes".

While there is no identities derived from the "flag-identity", it is used in
the typedef flag-type. Is this OK?

2. Some descriptions overuse capitalization. For example, instead of 'VLAN Name'
I would suggest 'VLAN name'.

Thanks for catching this. Will fix in next revision.

3. An example of an instance document in an appendix would be very helpful.

Thanks for your suggestion. We will add an example to the appendix.

Best regards,
Jie

[Alexander Clemm]

One way to support notifications for topology in a generic way will be through YANG-Push (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-15). Configure a subscription for on-change updates against the topology data tree. That will give applications what they need without the definition of custom notifications (which can of course also still be done).

--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-
topology-04
I've recently listened to the I2RS meeting in IETF 101.
Chris Hopps asked about the notifications in L2. He was asking about a more
general use of the notification that might be useful in the
I'm not really sure how to approach responding to his operational request - since
it really impacts all topology models. My inclination is to push this draft through
into RFC usage, and then to work through a "-bis"
functionality.
Jie - would you ask the individuals pushing for L2 model if that works for them.
Lada - would you ask the Yang doctors if this is the right approach to take.
Of course, this might be easier if we had versioning instead of a model name
change.
Sue Hares
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-04
Hi Lada,

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 9:32 PM
Subject: Yangdoctors early review of
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-04
Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka
Review result: Ready
This draft and YANG modules contained therein fit into the framework
of I2RS network topology models. I have no substantial comments, from
the YANG point of view this document is ready to be published.
1. What is the purpose of the 'flag-type' type and 'flag-identity'

identity?

There are no identities derived from the latter.

The "flag-type" type is used in the grouping "l2-network-attributes", "l2-node-
attributes" and "l2-link-attributes".
While there is no identities derived from the "flag-identity", it is used in the
typedef flag-type. Is this OK?

2. Some descriptions overuse capitalization. For example, instead of 'VLAN

Name'

I would suggest 'VLAN name'.

Thanks for catching this. Will fix in next revision.

3. An example of an instance document in an appendix would be very

helpful.
Thanks for your suggestion. We will add an example to the appendix.
Best regards,
Jie
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

...