Try again (dumb MUA)
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: YANG glitches Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call partial review
of draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02
Drawn to my attention by the Opsdir review, I looked at the YANG in this
but believe that I will never have the time to review such a large I-D
as I would wish. I did note the following glitches in the YANG modules
import statements lack reference statements, ietf-interfaces, ietf-hardware
references from the YANG module should be Normative; 3871, 5280 are
Informative
references must appear in the I-D references - I cannot find 4133, 5101,
5102
IANA Considerations TBD should have the same reference as the YANG
revision statement
I like the YANG Reference statements for the YANG data items - I would
like more for the feature and identity statements.
I did find the reuse of the Entity MIB surprising and will look some
more if I have time
Tom Petch
On 20/12/2019 18:23, Joe Clarke via Datatracker wrote:
Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it.
Reviewer: Joe Clarke
Review result: Not Ready
I have been assigned as a secondary reviewer on behalf of the ops directorate
to review this draft. This draft defines YANG modules for PSAMP with bulk
export via IPFIX. It contends that RFC 6728 defines a single YANG module that
couples IPFIX export with PSAMP sampling. It also puts an overly onerous
requirement that a device support SCTP. The aim of this draft is to decouple
the sampling and exporting and allow for other export transports.
I think Mehmet raised some valid points in his review around why this is being
done as an AD-sponsored document. While I am not a PSAMP/IPFIX expert, the
document and approach seem reasonable to me, and I wonder why this wasn't
discussed more in opsawg as a replacement for 6728. I also agree with Mehmet
that the 6728 authors should be included on this for a deeper technical review.
One other point that struck me as I read this document was that 6728 is being
obsoleted by this, but there are references to things defined within it. I
would think that anything that this new document will use in a normative
fashion should be explicitly stated in this document. Such examples are found
in Section 3 where text like "based on [RFC6728]" is used.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
