Subject: [I2nsf] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-21: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:53:43 -0800

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-21: No Objection

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://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm/

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

Thanks to Yoshi for the TSVART review, and the authors for both addressing his
comments and switching to heavy reliance on RFC8519. I'm glad we're reusing
YANG models instead of reinventing slightly different ones.

It appears the RFC8519 port model is inadequate because it doesn't support
multiple ranges; would it better to update RFC8519 to include the construct
here, or is there some different use case where port lists are needless
complexity?