On 17/06/2022 10:01, Scharf, Michael wrote:
Hi Tom,
Many thanks for again reading this draft. These are all good catches.
We have addressed all points noted below in the new version -07, except for one comment:
We have kept in -07 the IP address modeling that includes the zone. My own understand so far is that the models with the zone are the default in many YANG models. As a result, we probably need a reason not to allow a zone in draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp. Allowing it seems a more conservative approach, and therefore we have not changed this in -07. Yet, further feedback on the use of the zone would really be welcome.
Well yes. There was an interesting discussion on the LSR and later
NETMOD list recently where authors, who had not understood that
including the zone was what you got, sought to change RFC6991-bis to be
the other way round on the grounds that that was what everyone expected
and wanted. I think that that idea has died down but suspect that many
wished that they had specified '-no-zone' in their modules.
I raised to ensure that you were aware of what you are doing since some
others were not:-(
zones are troublesome in other regards as crops up on the 6man list in
that there is no agreed way to put them in a URI which Brian Carpenter
has been pursuing and sees a way forward now that IE 10 is out of
support (yes, it is all rather weird - not one of IPv6's finest hours).
Tom Petch
Version -07 tries to address also other IETF last call reviews and thus includes several changes. Please have a look at the new version (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07) or the diff (https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07) and let us know if more is needed.
Best regards
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: t petch <ietfa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 11:00 AM
To: last-call@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp@xxxxxxxx; tcpm@xxxxxxxx; tcpm-chairs@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-06.txt> (A YANG
Model for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Configuration) to Proposed
Standard
On 16/02/2022 22:42, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor
Extensions
WG (tcpm) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Model for
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Configuration'
Some stray thoughts.
All the IP address objects use the format that includes the zone; is
this intended?
You mention the i2nsf-capability-data-model as an example of modelling
TCP. i2nsf-nsf-facing could be another.
The TLP in the YANG module is out of date (like the Copyright date).
The example uses port 80 which is traditionally insecure. A secure port
might set a better example.
Tom Petch
<draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-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 2022-03-02. 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 specifies a minimal YANG model for TCP on devices that
are configured by network management protocols. The YANG model
defines a container for all TCP connections and groupings of
authentication parameters that can be imported and used in TCP
implementations or by other models that need to configure TCP
parameters. The model also includes basic TCP statistics. The model
is compliant with Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
(RFC 8342).
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
