Subject: Re: [mpls] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Tarek Saad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 14:59:37 +0000

Thanks for your review and comments. We have posted rev -16 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-16)  of the document and have addressed all your comments.
Please see inline for responses… [TS]

On 9/8/20, 6:37 PM, "Roman Danyliw via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    [External Email. Be cautious of content]

    Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-15: Discuss

    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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ss15H6vsrLIzUT7fOByT3tOZMADhuwizcRPlWQh-tGEv-vE1po2CEtI7VvxQwA$
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ss15H6vsrLIzUT7fOByT3tOZMADhuwizcRPlWQh-tGEv-vE1po2CEtKWQbIB4Q$

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    DISCUSS:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    ** Section 11.  Thanks for enumerating the sensitive read operations.  It looks
    like the sensitive writes aren’t described.  Wouldn’t it be a problem for
    arbitrary writes to occur to /rt:routing/mpls/*?  I recommend using the
    "template language" of "There are a number of data nodes defined in these YANG
    modules that are writable/creatable/deletable ... These are the subtrees and
    data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:" to provide this easy fix.
[TS]: thanks. We added sensitivity/vulnerability for write data nodes too.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thanks for the clear introduction of how this models was designed (Section 2.2
    and 2.3) and builds on prior work.

    Editorial nits:
    -- Section 1.  Editorial.  There is a tool chain artifact which is leaving
    “{!RFC8349}” in the text.

    -- Section 2.3.  Typo. s/Adjecency/Adjacency/

    -- Section 2.5. Typo. s/aaugmentation/augmentation/

[TS]: addressed, thanks.

Regards,
Tarek

Juniper Business Use Only

---

From: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 15:30:18 +0000

Hi Tarek!

Thanks for you updates in -16.  They address my concerns.  I cleared my ballot earlier today.

Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tarek Saad <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:00 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>; The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-15: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Thanks for your review and comments. We have posted rev -16
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-16)  of the document and
> have addressed all your comments.
>     Please refer to
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-
> criteria.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!Ss15H6vsrLIzUT7fOByT3tOZMADhuwizcRPlWQh-tGEv-
> vE1po2CEtI7VvxQwA$
>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
> mpls-base-yang/__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!Ss15H6vsrLIzUT7fOByT3tOZMADhuwizcRPlWQh-tGEv-
> vE1po2CEtKWQbIB4Q$
> 
> 
>