Hi WG, I think this work is very useful. I have some comments (also see my review of the architecture I-D).
Minor - In the text of the I-D, we should explain that the symptoms are targeted at humans and not machines. - Architecture talks about circular dependencies and states that it is likely to show up; shouldn't the YANG model add a notification saying circular dependency detected? - Security Considerations skips talking about readable leaves. - For example-service-assurance-device-acme, wouldn't it make more sense to augment the ietf-service-assurance-device instead of ietf-service-assurance? - I am wondering what is the best practice for example YANG module - copyright to IETF, organization, and contact to be IETF? It reads weird esp for a vendor-specific model example in the appendix A! Nits - In the IANA section, the Registrant Contact is mentioned as NETCONF WG. Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 3:34 PM Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran= 40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi WG, > > > > This mail we start a two weeks working group last call for > draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-05. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang/ > > > > Please send over your comments before June 22. > > Please also indicate if you think this document is ready to progress. > > > > Cheers, > > Tianran, on behalf of chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
