On 1/5/2017 3:13 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Kathleen's comments and always find it helpful when the
security considerations templates are used in YANG documents as Juergen
and Benoit suggested.
= Section 3 =
HTTP and ReST are defined, but they aren't used anywhere else in the
document in a way that requires definition.
= Section 6.1 =
"leaf server-provided {
type boolean;
config false;
description
"Indicates whether the information concerning this
particular network is populated by the server
(server-provided true, the general case for network
information discovered from the server),
or whether it is configured by a client
(server-provided true, possible e.g. for
service overlays managed through a controller)."
I think the second instance of "server-provided true" is actually
supposed to say "server-provided false," right?
Good catch.
Updating a YANG module once published is a little bit of a pain.
Regards, Benoit
.
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
