Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric-02.txt

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:35:52 +0000

From: Lsr <[email-masked]> on behalf of [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: 18 December 2020 18:43

I still have an issue with the prefix in -02

The examples use rm: which I find a bit short.
The module should be the same but uses  isis-rmetric: which I find a bit long.
isis-rm: would suit me

Tom Petch

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.

        Title           : YANG Module for IS-IS Reverse Metric
        Author          : Christian Hopps
        Filename        : draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric-02.txt
        Pages           : 15
        Date            : 2020-12-18

Abstract:
   This document defines a YANG module for managing the reverse metric
   extension to the the intermediate system to intermediate system
   routeing protocol.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric/

There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric-02.html

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 12:51:04 +0000

Speaking as document shepherd:

Hi Tom, Chris, 
I agree that the example prefix should match the module prefix. Given that ietf-isis-reverse-metric is a module specifically for this functionality and not a general building block, I'm less concerned about the length of the prefix. If it were a common IS-IS types module that is likely to be get a lot of importation and reuse, I'd agree that the prefix should be shorter. 
Thanks,
Acee

On 1/4/21, 6:36 AM, "Lsr on behalf of tom petch" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Tom Petch

    Abstract:

---

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 05:22:18 -0500

Agreed. I will update the scope defined XML namespace prefix to match the YANG prefix in the examples.

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Jan 4, 2021, at 7:51 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[email-masked]> wrote:
>