Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for reviewing the draft.
See inline.
On 6/26/2022 4:04 PM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
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.
That might be the case now, but this is obviously not the end goal, as
we want to solve closed loop automation.
So we propose not to mention it.
- 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?
Next to the notification, the higher level question is: what's happening
in case of circular dependencies configuration?
So instead of the notification, we might stress in the draft that
circulation dependencies should be not be accepted by the
implementation. Btw, that's something we can't impose from a YANG
language point of view.
- Security Considerations skips talking about readable leaves.
Thanks. We're going to review this section according to
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines
- For example-service-assurance-device-acme, wouldn't it make more
sense to augment the ietf-service-assurance-device instead of
ietf-service-assurance?
Yes, we could. Actually, it depends whether the
ietf-service-assurance-device is generic enough. As this is an example,
we propose not to change that. We could add: "it's an implementation
choice to either augment the identity from ietf-service-assurance or to
augment the parameters from ietf-service-assurance-device"
- 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!
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8407.html#section-3.2.1 is not clear.
Good point. Let's remove the IETF references.
Nits
- In the IANA section, the Registrant Contact is mentioned as NETCONFWG.
Well spot.
Regards, Benoit
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
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
