IANA Considerations does not register the module names used in the modules
Examples are IPv4 only, IPv6 would be good
BGP is included when it comes to defining a router-id but is ignored
everywhere else, such as signalling MSD, protocol extensions etc
reference "RFC XXXX" would be improved by including the title in all
cases not just some
the scheme http: appears in many places. It would be lovely if this
really was the scheme but I fear that it is not
module srcmn
the upper bound must be larger
the value must be greater
consistency is good - I think greater is better
8.3
operation states
usually operational
two imports lack references
typedef router-id
this is a well known type from RFC8394; it seems likely to confuse to
redefine it with a related but different meaning
leaf enabled
enables protocol extensions
which protocols?
leaf protected
it is used to protect
how does it do that:-)
enum dual
... In this case will be advertised with backup flag set
What is the backup flag? It does not feature in RFC8660. Needs an
explanation and reference
container link-msd
list link-msds
leaf msd
The usual YANG convention is for a list to be plural and the leaf
singular. You have the plural list but not the leaf. And who needs the
container? This is mpls not a common module that might be augmented so
what does the container give apart from complexity?
list policy
leaf string
YANG string caters for very large items of very complex character sets.
Is that desirable?
leaf used
will used plus free equal size?
Indicates if the binding is /instal/installed/
notification-segment-routing-global-srgb-collision
a mix of conflict and collision; consistency is good and I prefer the
latter which is the name of the notification
containing /s/a/ mapping
... sid collision
again consistency good, prefer collision to conflicting
s.9
I would have thought the srgb worthy of mention under sensitive nodes
Tom Petch
On 16/11/2020 19:32, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Source Packet Routing in Networking
WG (spring) to consider the following document: - 'YANG Data Model for
Segment Routing'
<draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-23.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 2020-11-30. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model for segment routing
configuration and operation, which is to be augmented by different
segment routing data planes. The document also defines a YANG model
that is intended to be used on network elements to configure or
operate segment routing MPLS data plane, as well as some generic
containers to be reused by IGP protocol modules to support segment
routing.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
