Hi, I reviewed this draft at -01 [1]. The authors proposed acceptable changes, and these have appeared in the subsequent revisions.
As part of WG last call, I have done another quick review. Asides from a few trivial nits (below), I think this draft is ready for publication. Thanks, Adrian [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/xcSMXTG8Pooi3ypLNyQWEKm7qgg/ ==Nits== Section 1 para 1 This document shouldn't "propose" anything. It should "define". --- 2.1 s/Service Level Agreements/Service Level Agreement/ --- 3. s/the context of layering/the context of the layering/ --- 3.1 s/specified in[RFC8641]/specified in [RFC8641]/ --- Obviously, draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common is an RFC now. You can replace the reference and fix CCCC. --- leaf measurement-interval { type uint32; units "seconds"; default "60"; description "Indicates the time interval to perform PM measurement."; } Is a value of 0 supported? What does it mean? -----Original Message----- From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke) Sent: 28 February 2022 23:05 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC: A YANG Model for Network and VPN Service Performance Monitoring Ahead of IETF 113, we'd like to get working group consensus on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm/. We are therefore conducting a two-week WG LC on this work. I have also requested reviews from Yang Docs, Ops, and Routing DIRs. Please share you comments and reviews on list. WG LC will end on March 14, 2022. Thanks. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
