YANG Data Model for Network Instances
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-12
Yes
(Alia Atlas)
No Objection
Warren Kumari
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-02-07 for -09)
Unknown
All of the examples in §B.1 use IPv4 addresses exclusively. Please update these to use all-IPv6 or a mix of IPv4 and IPv6. See <https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/> for details.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-02-08 for -09)
Unknown
Same remark as in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ballot/#benoit-claise The title should be: "YANG module for network instance" This document is NMDA compliant. I should be clearly mentioned. Like in the RFC7223bis abstract. No need to repeat the tree-diagram reference in: The NI model can be represented using the tree format defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] as: Like for the LNE YANG module, you still have the -state in the example. ================================================================ Some more feedback from Martin Bjorklund, as YANG doctor: In 3.1 they have: The network-instance module is structured to facilitate the definition of information models for specific types ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This should probably be "data models" -------------------------------- In 3.1 they show the pre-NMDA split tree: augment "/ni:network-instances/ni:network-instance/ni:ni-type" { case l3vpn { container l3vpn { ... } container l3vpn-state { ... } } } this should be just: augment "/ni:network-instances/ni:network-instance/ni:ni-type" { case l3vpn { container l3vpn { ... } } } -------------------------------- same in 3.1.2: +--rw (ni-type)? | +--:(l3vpn) | +--rw l3vpn:l3vpn | | ... // config data | +--ro l3vpn:l3vpn-state | | ... // state data should be +--rw (ni-type)? | +--:(l3vpn) | +--rw l3vpn:l3vpn | | ... ------------------- The example in appendix B.2 uses "ietf-routing:routing-state" and "ietf-interfaces:interfaces-state" but that node is pre-NMDA, and deprecated in 8022bis and 7022bis. This example should probably be updated.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-02-05 for -08)
Unknown
Two minor editorial comments: 1) Sec 1.2: I'm surprised to see an open issue listed here. Is there already any plan to address this somehow or is that listed to inform the reader, however, in the second case I would probably rather call it 'limitation' or something like this... 2) Sec 2: "In this document, we consider network devices that support protocols and functions defined within the IETF Routing Area, e.g, routers, firewalls, and hosts. " I assume that this yang module can also be used for routing protocols and functions that have not been defined in the IETF?
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown