Hi Tom,
Thanks for the reminder. Just posted a new version https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-yang-17 to update the references.
Best,
- Xufeng
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:52 AM, tom p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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@jacobs-university.de >;
<yang-doctors@xxxxxxxx>; <draft-ietf-pim-yang.all@ietf.org >;
<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@jacobs-university.de > 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
> >
> >
>
