WG Last call : comments from Tom Petch to be addressed

[DanielaSpreafico]

Here the comments to be addressed:

-- A follow up to an earlier comment of mine relating to leaf actual-transmitted-level { type decimal64 { fraction-digits 1; range "0..99"; I was unsure if the maximum value was then 99.9 or 99.0 so I asked on the NETMOD list and the answer is 99.0. I note that the same construct is used in RFC8561 so I assume that 99.0 is a magic number in microwave.

-- One more thought. The Appendices would benefit from a reference to RFC8792.

-- 8561 is an import so must be a Normative reference

"ETSI EN 302 217-1 - "ETSI EN 301 129 - need adding as references as a URL so I can see if they are accessible

1.1 should include ctp rlt rltp snir IMHO

carries, in various configurations/modes. T perhaps 'carriers'

. The supporting carriers are identified by its termination points /its/their/

s.3.3 L2 ethernet Is there an Ethernet that is a different layer?

s.3.4 augmented by the microwave topology model a reference would be useful

module snir fraction-digits 1; range "0..99"; I imagine that that excludes 99.9 or 99.1 etc

actual transmitted level ditto

when choices specify mw-tp mw-link is one of the choice mandatory?

apply only for networks with an microwave network topology type /an/a/

A.1 10.10.10.1 is not an address for documentation use

A.2 dirro

B.1 ditto

The authors would like to thank ...

[DanielaSpreafico]

I try to reply to the comments received:

1. leaf actual-transmitted-level { type decimal64 { fraction-digits 1; range "0..99"; I was unsure if the maximum value was then 99.9 or 99.0 so I asked on the NETMOD list and the answer is 99.0. I note that the same construct is used in RFC8561 so I assume that 99.0 is a magic number in microwave. Reply: For the setting of transmitted power (maximum-nominal-power) the range could fit the 99.0 limit. For the value of the measure (actual-transmitted-level) perhaps some values over the 99.0 limit could be used for specific use cases (fail, tx-mute,..) that don’t allow to retrieve the actual value (the same for snir).

2. One more thought. The Appendices would benefit from a reference to RFC8792. Reply: OK, to add (Normative o Informative ? ): [RFC8792] Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., Wu, Qu, "Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and RFCs”, RFC 8792, DOI 10.17487/RFC8792, June 2020, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8792.

3. 8561 is an import so must be a Normative reference Reply: OK, to add on 6.1. section: [RFC8561] Ahlberg, J., Ye, M., Li, X., Spreafico, D., Vaupotic, M., "A YANG Data Model for Microwave radio Link”, RFC 8561, DOI 10.17487/RFC8561, June 2019, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8561.

4. "ETSI EN 302 217-1 - "ETSI EN 301 129 - need adding as references as a URL so I can see if they are accessible Reply: OK, to add on 6.2 section (Informative): - For ETSI EN 302 217-1, it is already on RFC 8561: [EN302217-1] ETSI, "Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics and requirements for point-to-point equipment and antennas; Part 1: Overview, common characteristics and system- dependent requirements", EN 302 217-1 V3.1.0, May 2017. A new version exists: [EN302217-1] ETSI, "Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics and requirements for point-to-point equipment and antennas; Part 1: Overview, common characteristics and requirements not related to access to radio spectrum", EN 302 217-1 Vxxx, Oct 2021.

- For ETSI EN 301 129 , it is already on RFC 8561: [EN301129] ETSI, "Transmission and Multiplexing (TM); Digital Radio Relay Systems (DRRS); Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH); System performance monitoring parameters of SDH DRRS", EN 301 129 V1.1.2, May 1999.

5. 1.1 should include ctp Reply: OK to add (in the acronyms list) : CTP: Carrier Termination Point rlt Reply: OK to add (in the acronyms list) : RLT: Radio Link terminal rltp Reply: OK to add (in the acronyms list) : RLTP: Radio Link Termination Point snir Reply: OK to add (in the acronyms list) : SNIR: Signal Noise Interference Ratio IMHO Reply: ???

6. carries, in various configurations/modes. T perhaps 'carriers' Reply: OK, ‘carries’ to 'carriers' on 3.2 section

7. . The supporting carriers are identified by its termination points /its/their/ Reply: OK, ‘its’ to ‘their’ on 3.2

8. s.3.3a L2 ethernet Is there an Ethernet that is a different layer? Reply: YES, the L1 ethernet is another ethernet layer. No change.

9. s.3.4 augmented by the microwave topology model a reference would be useful Reply: reference to Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies or to microwave topology ?

10. module snir fraction-digits 1; range "0..99"; I imagine that that excludes 99.9 or 99.1 etc Reply: see previous reply at the point 1.

11. actual transmitted level ditto Reply: see previous reply at the begin.

12. when choices specify mw-tp mw-link is one of the choice mandatory? Reply: ??

13. apply only for networks with an microwave network topology type /an/a/ Reply: OK, to change ‘an’ to ‘a’.

14. A.1 10.10.10.1 is not an address for documentation use Reply: Which address can be used?

15. A.2 dirro

16. B.1 ditto

17. The authors would like to thank ... Reply: I think thanks to Scott, correct? Others?

[samans]

1. leaf actual-transmitted-level { type decimal64 { fraction-digits 1; range "0..99"; <--- delete this } units "dBm"; config false;
2. see above {{!RFC8792}}
3. {{RFC8561}}
4. check ietf xml database for the references to ETSI EN 302 217-1 - ETSI EN 301 129 or create by hand in the draft. Ask how to get the xml file included in the database.
5. add abbreviations
6. typo
7. typo
8. reply back with reason for no change
9. The microwave topology model is the model being defined by this ID. So no reference is needed. Maybe change the wording to "augmented by THIS microwave topology model"
10. Remove range same as point 1.
11. See point 1 and 10
12. Review each choice statement and determine if we want to make them mandatory: See The "mandatory" statement, which is optional, takes as an argument the string "true" or "false" and puts a constraint on valid data. If "mandatory" is "true", at least one node from exactly one of the choice's case branches MUST exist.
13. typo
14. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt use 192.0.2.1 & 192.0.2.2 or whatever
15. issue 14
16. issue 14
17. Thanks section. Ask the normal contributors to this call if they want to be listed.

[samans]

Issues resolved and included in version -08.