Xufeng You might want to update your references at some point; several of the I-Ds referenced in -16 are now RFC e.g. 8340 tree diagram 8342 NMDA 8343 Interfaces 7223bis 8349 Routing Management 8022bis Also, you reference RFC5306 from the YANG module but I cannot see it in the References of the I-D. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Xufeng Liu" <xufeng.liu.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <yang-doctors@xxxxxxxx>; <draft-ietf-pim-yang.all@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; <pim@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 6:30 PM > Hi Juergen, > > Thanks for looking at the document and providing further valuable comments. > We have updated the document with https://tools.ietf.org/ > html/draft-ietf-pim-yang-16 to address these issues. > > Besides these fixes, authors and PIM Working Group have further considered > and discussed the type of statistic counters in the model. We have decided > to used 64-bit type instead of 32-bit type: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/ti58tMl9ppt7r19DxN8tTAn8n4w > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Pifg3ABQVgvsFWLTIsI9yLR6RXA > > Thanks, > - Xufeng > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwaelder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I have checked version -15 today. The document has improved quite a > > bit. Thanks for taking my comments into account. Section 2.5 is much > > clearer now and I believe the new MIB mapping section is helpful. > > Thanks also for expanding the security considerations section and > > adding the example in the Appendix. > > > > Below are some questions that came up during my review of -15: > > > > a) I did not validate the example in Appendix A using tools but I > > wonder whether > > > > "pim-sm:sm": [null] > > > > is really correct. Should this not be > > > > "ietf-pim-sm:sm": [null] > > > > in JSON? There are multiple occurances of this. I think the 'sm' > > node you refer to here is a container - so why would it be [null]? > > > [Xufeng]: Fixed. > > > > I also wonder whether this is correct: > > > > "source-address": "ietf-routing-types:*", > > > > RFC 7951 seems to indicate that this should simply be "*" and not > > "ietf-routing-types:*". So again, has the example been validated? > > > > [Xufeng]: Fixed. Also fixed the validation tool to correct other errors in > the example. > > > > > b) You seem to use a notation in the tree diagrams that is not defined > > in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-06.txt: > > > > +--rw <global configuration> > > > > I assume this means something like > > > > +--rw // global configuration > > > > but even that does not seem comply to the common tree diagram > > notation. Perhaps simply state somewhere in Section 1.2 that > > things in <> brackets are placeholders. > > > > [Xufeng]: Added the description in Sec. 1.2. > > > > > Why is section 1.2 called 'Tree Diagrams Prefixes' - should it > > not be just "Tree Diagrams"? > > > > [Xufeng]: Yes. Fixed. > > > > > c) I am still unsure what 'wider management interfaces' are, perhaps > > replace 'wider' with 'other'. > > > > [Xufeng]: Changed as suggested. Thanks. > > > > > d) Spelling errors: instnace, conatin, the the, cooresponding > > > > [Xufeng]: Fixed. > > > > > /js > > > > >
