Hi WG, I support the adoption of this work and I have thoughts on how to improve the document -
Some questions/comments - - Can the title of the I-D be improved? - Why do you have the config and the state trees separately in Figures 1 and 2? That's out of fashion with NMDA! - I hope this model is applicable for both the headend router as well as for the controller. If yes, we should highlight that as well as make sure the YANG model takes care of this. For example, counters, forwarding, etc - The node-capabilities are marked as read-only, but an operator may want to disable or enable these right? Suggestions for improving YANG - - Update copyright year - path-attrs-cmn is described as "Path properties -common for v4/v6", in that case, is this the right yang model for it? and should it be in the generic SR model instead? - Typedef for algorithm could be useful, it is unit32 here but uint8 in draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang - What is the purpose of the empty containers end, end_psp, end_usp, end_psp_usp, end_usd, end_psp_usd, end_usp_usd, end_psp_usp_usd? Are they placeholders for something? - Run this "pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 <FILE>" to help you with formatting the yang model. Thanks! Dhruv On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 3:22 AM James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > > Dear WG: > > > > This email begins a 2 week WG adoption call for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raza-spring-srv6-yang/ ending Monday > 27th July 2020. > > > > Please speak up if you support or oppose adopting this document into the WG. > Please also provide comments/reasons for that support (or lack thereof). > Silence will not be considered consent. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Jim, Joel & Bruno > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
