YANG Data Models for the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol
draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-17
Yes
(Martin Duke)
No Objection
Erik Kline
Francesca Palombini
Jim Guichard
John Scudder
Murray Kucherawy
Paul Wouters
(Andrew Alston)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
Erik Kline
No Objection
Francesca Palombini
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
John Scudder
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
(was Discuss)
No Objection
Comment
(2024-01-18)
Sent
Thank you to Rich Salz for the SECDIR review. Thank you for addressed by COMMENT and DISCUSS feedback.
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
(was Discuss)
No Objection
Comment
(2024-01-10 for -16)
Sent
Thanks for resolving my discuss points.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2023-10-25 for -15)
Sent
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-15 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). Special thanks to Mohamed Boucadair for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. Other thanks to Ted Lemon and Scott Rose, the DNS directorate reviewers, please consider this dns-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-alto-oam-yang-15-dnsdir-telechat-lemon-2023-10-23/ (authors should probably reply on the email thread) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-alto-oam-yang-14-dnsdir-telechat-rose-2023-10-19/ (and I have seen authors' reply) I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS ## NMDA support I often see YANG RFC stating their support (or lack of) NMDA (RFC 8342), is there any reason why NMDA support is not stated in the text ? ## Section 3 (comments can be ignored) While it does not hurt, several acronyms are really well-known, hence no need to expand them. Is "O&M" really used in other documents ? First time that I see this acronym. ## Section 5.1 As the module is prefixed by the ietf-alto namespace, strongly suggest to use another term than "alto" at the root and even more s/alto-client/client/ s/alto-server/server/ ## Section 5.3.1.1 As I am trusting the SEC ADs' reviews, I will not ballot a blocking DISCUSS, please remove all HTTP (as opposed to HTTPS) in the text and in the data model itself. Or is "http" used instead of "https" ? But, then why is there a "tls" Later in the YANG module itself, it seems that the TLS termination would be done in a different node, then how can this TLS termination be configured ? If confirmed, then adding some text in this section would make the reader's task easier. ## Section 5.3.2 I am sorry, but relying on SYSLOG in 2023 seems really legacy... ## Section 7.1 Some identities would benefit if the units where mentioned in the description instead of providing a pointer to another RFC (e.g., for delay-rt), adding a meaningful description (such as "round-trip delay") would also be benefitial for the reader. ## Section A.5 The example should also have a listen to "::/0" for IPv6 # NITS ## Section 4.2 and other places s/the data models/the data model/ or /the data modules/ as this I-D defines a single data model consisting of several data modules.
Martin Duke Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -14)
Unknown
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2023-10-26 for -15)
Sent
Hi,
Thank you for this well written document and YANG module.
I have a few minor, non-blocking comments, that the authors can address as they wish.
Minor level comments:
(1) p 8, sec 5.1. Overview of ALTO O&M Data Model
module: ietf-alto
+--rw alto!
Making alto a top level presence container isn't a problem, but given the clients are a list anyway, I would have probably just have made alto-server a presence container instead of the top level container.
(2) p 62, sec Appendix A. Examples of Extending the ALTO O&M Data Model
The case peeringdb allows the ALTO server to update the server URI to
the org object of the organization record in PeeringDB.
Perhaps include an informative reference to PeeringDB, or briefly explain what it is.
Nit level comments:
(3) p 3, sec 1. Introduction
The basic structure of this YANG data model is guided by Section 16
of [RFC7285] and [RFC7971]. Although the scope of the YANG data
model in this document mainly focuses on the support of the base ALTO
protocol [RFC7285] and the existing ALTO standard extensions:
[RFC8189], [RFC8895], [RFC8896], [RFC9240], [RFC9241], [RFC9275], and
[RFC9439].
I'm not sure the second sentence quite scans, perhaps drop "Although"?
Regards,
Rob
Andrew Alston Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Not sent