[Last-Call] Fwd: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-06.txt> (A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Try again - my last effort went to the IESG Secretary - sorry secretary.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-06.txt> (A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types) to Proposed Standard
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:04:14 +0100
From: tom p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
CC: ccamp@xxxxxxxx, ccamp-chairs@xxxxxxxx, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, db3546@xxxxxxx, draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types@xxxxxxxx

The YANG module references RFC4203, RFC7699 and G.694.2 but the I-D does
not so these need adding. I note that the other references from the YANG
are all Informative which seems to me debatable.

grouping wson-label-start-end is introduced as
'A YANG grouping that defines the label-start and label-end'
which leads me to expect two leaf but there is only one; the YANG
description is
"The WSON label-start or label-end ...
which seems more accurate but since the grouping is a choice of cwdm or
dwdm could it find uses which are neither start nor end in which case a
different name would be even more appropriate?

grouping flexi-grid-label-start-end is introduced as
'A YANG grouping that defines the label-start and label-end '
and again there is only one leaf; the YANG description is
"Label-start and Label-end information for Flexi-grid."
which seems equally inappropriate.  I cannot see any uses of this
grouping - I note that draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang has not been
updated to match this I-D - and since it is but one leaf, not even a
choice, I wonder why it warrants a grouping with the increased
difficulty of comprehension that groupings introduce.

leaf min-slot-width-factor {type uint16 {range "1..max";}
           default 1;
leaf max-slot-width-factor {type uint16 {range "1..max";
but with no default. Worth a YANG conditional perhaps for max>min or
max>=min as appropriate.  Can they be equal?  the equal ranges imply so
but has it any particular meaning?

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ccamp@xxxxxxxx>; <ccamp-chairs@xxxxxxxx>; "Daniele Ceccarelli"
<daniele.ceccarelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <db3546@xxxxxxx>;
<draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 9:44 PM
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-06.txt> (A YANG Data
Model for Layer 0 Types) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and
Measurement Plane
WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model
for Layer
0 Types'
  <draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-06.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2020-09-30. Exceptionally,
comments may
be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.




--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux