Skip to main content

A YANG Data Model for L1 Connectivity Service Model (L1CSM)
draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-26

Yes

Erik Kline
Roman Danyliw

No Objection

Jim Guichard
Murray Kucherawy
Paul Wouters
Zaheduzzaman Sarker

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 25 and is now closed.

Erik Kline
Yes
John Scudder
Yes
Comment (2024-02-21 for -25) Not sent
Thanks for this well-written document. Thanks also to Roman for serving a special guest AD, and to Luis for the clear and comprehensive shepherd writeup.
Roman Danyliw
Yes
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2024-02-28 for -25) Sent
I have nothing to add, other than to agree with Rob Wilton's comments.
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2024-02-20 for -25) Sent
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-25

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Luis Contreras for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Antoine Fressancourt, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-25-intdir-telechat-fressancourt-2024-02-16/ (hoping to read soon replies to his review)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Ambiguous use of model

In several places in the I-D, 'model' is used when "data model" is more accurate and less ambiguous.

## Section 1

In `(i.e., reachability or TE information in remote customer sites)` should it rather be 'e.g.' (== for example) ?

## Section 1.1

Suggest to move the figure 1 *after* the text explaining it (as the text expands some acronyms). No need to reply on this comment.

## Section 2

Should leaf names "uni-id" and "service-id" simply be "id" ? 

## Section 4

Rather than `L1CSM YANG Code`, why not "L1CSM YANG data model" ?

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## L1 or layer 1 ?

The I-D should be consistent and use either "L1" or "layer 1" rather than alternating both terms.

## YANG in uppercase

Please ensure to use all uppercase "YANG" throughout this I-D.

## Abstract

s/This document provides a YANG Layer 1 Connectivity Service Model/This document provides a YANG *data model* Layer 1 Connectivity Service Model/

s/This model can be utilized/This *data* model can be *utilised*/

s/Layer 1 network/layer-1 network/

## Section 1

s/This document provides a YANG Layer 1/This document provides a YANG *data model* *l*ayer 1/
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2024-02-23 for -25) Sent
Hi,

Thanks for publishing this document and YANG module.  It looks good to me, with just one minor comment:


(1) p 2, sec 1.  Introduction

   The primary focus of this document is to describe L1CSM YANG model
   required for the instantiation of point-to-point L1 connectivity
   services, to provide Layer 1 connectivity between two or more
   customer sites where the customer has some control over the
   establishment and type of the connectivity.  The L1CSM specified in
   this document supports the point-to-point connectivity services
   defined in [RFC4847].

I'm struggling to parse the first sentence in paragraph above.  Perhaps the following is clearer?

   The primary focus of this document is to describe the L1CSM YANG
   model that is used for the instantiation of point-to-point L1
   connectivity services, which provide Layer 1 connectivity between
   two or more customer sites where the customer has some control
   over the establishment and type of the connectivity. 

It also wasn't really clear to me how the YANG model relates to the 3 different abstract services models that you described.  Is it possible for the relationship to be a bit more clearly explained please.

Regards,
Rob