Hi Bo! Thanks for adressing my comments! Everything I have raised is cleared, I have no further comments. I saw that the comments Mahesh raised are addressed also. This document is ready for publication. -- Per On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:06 AM Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Per, > > > > Thank you for confirming and reviewing again. Version -20 has been submitted to address two new issues introduced -19 version, including the "te-packet types" prefix and the missing mandatory 'datastore' node in the "establish-subscription" RPC. > > Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-20 > > > > Please also see my response inline. > > > > Thanks, > > Bo > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Per Andersson <per.ietf@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:36 PM > > To: Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; teas@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [Teas] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-18 > > > > Hi Bo! > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 12:35 PM Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Per, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the valuable review. The -19 version has been submitted to address all the comments: > > > > > > Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-19 > > > > This import has changed prefix from what is in the originat module ietf-te-packet-types from RFC 8776 from "te-packet-types" to "te-pkt". > > > > import ietf-te-packet-types { > > - prefix te-pkt; > > + prefix te-packet-types; > > > > I suggest to revert this change and use the modules prefix. The benefit in a familiar module prefix is much larger than the cost of the extra characters. > > > > [Bo Wu] Thanks for catching this. I agree the change loses the benefit. I have reverted back in -20 version. > > > > > > > > > The example in Figure 23 for establishing a YANG-Push subscription over RESTCONF is wrong. Since YANG-Push is used, "ietf-yang-push:datastore" > > > > > > needs to be in the input parameters and the correct subtree filter tag is "ietf-yang-push:datastore-subtree-filter" and not "stream-subtree-filter". > > > > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, since the example is using YANG-Push over RESTCONF, add a normative reference to RFC 8650. > > > > > > [Bo Wu] Thanks for catching this issue. We have corrected with "ietf-yang-push:datastore-subtree-filter". > > > > You still need to add the "ietf-yang-push:datastore" node to the establish-subscription RPC input parameters, e.g. something like > > > > "ietf-yang-push:datastore":"ietf-datastores:running" > > > > [Bo Wu] Thank you for providing help again. I should NOT miss this mandatory node. Fixed in -20 version. > > > > > > > > > The following idnits warnings should be attended: > > > > > > draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-17.txt: > > > > > > > > > > > > Miscellaneous warnings: > > > > > > > > > > I just thought I would at least mention them, thanks! > > > > I don't know about the YANG warning, maybe that should be looked into by YANG Doctors. > > [Bo Wu] I will ask some advice from YANG doctors. > > > > Thank, > > Bo > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Per -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
