Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-yang-14
review-ietf-detnet-yang-14-yangdoctors-lc-liu-2021-11-09-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-detnet-yang-14 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | 14 (document currently at 20) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
Deadline | 2021-11-10 | |
Requested | 2021-10-26 | |
Requested by | János Farkas | |
Authors | Xuesong Geng , Yeoncheol Ryoo , Don Fedyk , Reshad Rahman , Zhenqiang Li | |
I-D last updated | 2021-11-09 | |
Completed reviews |
Tsvart Last Call review of -18
by Joerg Ott
(diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -19 by Jean-Michel Combes (diff) Yangdoctors Early review of -12 by Xufeng Liu (diff) Yangdoctors Last Call review of -14 by Xufeng Liu (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -16 by Julien Meuric (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Xufeng Liu |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-detnet-yang by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/F3tgHYVEa1vqV61-hYe4eOGjI30 | |
Reviewed revision | 14 (document currently at 20) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2021-11-09 |
review-ietf-detnet-yang-14-yangdoctors-lc-liu-2021-11-09-00
Thanks to authors for addressing the previous review comments. The updates look good. The followings are a few additional nits: 1) In the model, “container flow-spec” has been changed to “container traffic-spec”, but the description has not been updated, shown as below: container traffic-spec { description "Flow-specification specifies how the Source transmits packets for the flow. This is the promise/request of the Source to the network. The network uses this flow specification to allocate resources and adjust queue parameters in network nodes."; 2) Most names of list and leaf-list have been fixes. The following three were missed: “leaf-list member-apps” should be “leaf-list member-app” “leaf-list member-services” should be “leaf-list member-service” “leaf-list member-fwd-sublayers” should be “leaf-list member-fwd-sublayer” 3) Section 10. Security Considerations would need to include a list of “sensitive or vulnerable” nodes. RFC 8349 shows an example. Thanks, - Xufeng