A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types
draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-09

[Ballot comment]
Section 1.2

  YANG module ietf-layer0-types (defined in Section 3) references
  [RFC6163], [RFC7205], and [RFC7698].

RFC 7205 looks like a typo for 6205 -- I don't think that "Use Cases for
Telepresence Multistreams" is relevant for WSON.  That said, we
reference 6205 many times in the rest of the document, so (IIUC) we
don't need to mention it here in order to have a reference in the
document outside of the module itself?

Section 2

I'm not sure how appropriate RFC 6205 is as a reference for all of the
indicated terms; e.g., I don't see mention of "start", "end", "range",
or "hop" as applying to labels, there.

Section 3

    grouping l0-label-range-info {
      description
        "Information for layer 0 label range.";

nit(?): "information for" makes me expect that this will be describing
the range itself, but the contained type and priority seem to be more
metadata about the range than the range itself.  To me, writing
"Information about the layer 0 label range" would feel more natural.

    grouping flexi-grid-label-range-info {
      description
        "Info of Flexi-grid-specific label range";

nit: "Info of" seems rather colloquial; the same "Information about"
construction I suggested above seems like it would work well here, since
this is also a -label-range-info grouping.

It seems unusual to me (admittedly, not a YANG expert) that the
descriptions for min-slot-width-factor and max-slot-width-factor
separately refer to a "range" when each one only provides half of the
range.  I guess this is related to Erik's comment.

              Minimum slot width should be smaller than or equal to
              Maximum slot width. ";

Similarly, this restriction seems like one that can be expressed as a
YANG "must" directive, which it looks like Rob already noted.

Section 4

  modules.  It is critical consider how imported definitions will be
  utilized and accessible via RPC operations, as the resultant schema
  will have data nodes that can be writable, or readable, and will have

nit: "critical to consider"

Section 8.2

Don't RFCs 6163, 6205, 7698, and 8363 need to be normative since they
are used as references for YANG elements?

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thank you for your effort on this document.  I appreciate that I have reviewed this module previously.  I have a few minor (mostly editorial) comments on the latest revision of the YANG module:

A few minor comments on the latest version of the YANG module:

Some of the descriptions have been wrapped at less than 69 characters.  Corrected examples are below.

1)
  grouping wson-label-start-end {
    description
      "The WSON label-start or label-end used to specify WSON label
      range.";

2)
          case single {
            leaf dwdm-n {
              type l0-types:dwdm-n;
              description
                "The given value 'N' is used to determine the nominal
                central frequency.";
            }
          }

3)     
    leaf priority {
      type uint8;
      description
        "Priority in Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
        (ISCD).";

4)     
  grouping flexi-grid-label-start-end {
    description
      "The Flexi-grid label-start or label-end used to specify
      Flexi-grid label range.";

5)
      case super {
        list subcarrier-flexi-n {
          key flexi-n;
          uses flexi-grid-frequency-slot;
          description
            "List of subcarrier channels for flexi-grid super
            channel.";
        }
      }

6)
      leaf slot-width-granularity {
        type identityref {
          base flexi-slot-width-granularity;
        }
        default flexi-swg-12p5ghz;
        description
          "Minimum space between slot widths. Default is 12.500 GHz";


The following leaf had an extra blank line before the description:
PROPOSED:

    leaf flexi-n {
      type l0-types:flexi-n;
      description
        "The given value 'N' is used to determine the nominal central
        frequency.";
    }

Please change the description to "Flexi-grid-specific label range related information", i.e.,

CURRENT:
  grouping flexi-grid-label-range-info {
    description
      "Info of Flexi-grid-specific label range";
   
PROPOSED:   
  grouping flexi-grid-label-range-info {
    description
      "Flexi-grid-specific label range related information";
    uses l0-label-range-info;

     
Nit, some of the descriptions have an extra trailing space after the full stop, plesae search/replace '. "'

For min-slot-width-factor, I would suggest removing the last sentence, and only specifying the constraint on the max-slot-width-factor, and also define a must statement as well.

CURRENT:
      leaf min-slot-width-factor {
        type uint16 {
          range "1..max";
        }
        default 1;
        description
          "Slot width range: two multipliers of the slot width ,
          granularity, each indicating the minimal and maximal slot
          width supported by a port, respectively.

          Minimum slot width is calculated by:
            Minimum slot width (GHz) =
              min-slot-width-factor * slot-width-granularity.
          Minimum slot width should be smaller than or equal to
          Maximum slot width. ";
         
PROPOSED:
      leaf min-slot-width-factor {
        type uint16 {
          range "1..max";
        }
        default 1;
        description
          "Slot width range: two multipliers of the slot width ,
          granularity, each indicating the minimal and maximal slot
          width supported by a port, respectively.

          Minimum slot width is calculated by:
            Minimum slot width (GHz) =
              min-slot-width-factor * slot-width-granularity.";
        reference
          "RFC8363: GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in Support of Flexi-Grid
          Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks";
      }

I suggest tweaking the description and adding a must constraint to the max-slot-width-factor.  My assumption here is that a client could set the min-slot-width-factor to 2, and doesn't need to also specify max-slot-width-factor unless they want it to be greater than 2.  Coversely, they can specify both if they wish.

CURRENT:
      leaf max-slot-width-factor {
        type uint16 {
          range "1..max";
        }
        description
          "Slot width range: two multipliers of the slot width ,
          granularity, each indicating the minimal and maximal slot
          width supported by a port, respectively.


          Maximum slot width is calculated by:
            Maximum slot width (GHz) =
              max-slot-width-factor * slot-width-granularity
          Maximum slot width should be bigger than or equal to
          Minimum slot width. ";
        reference
          "RFC8363: GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in Support of Flexi-Grid
          Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks";
      }
     
PROPOSED:
     
      leaf max-slot-width-factor {
        type uint16 {
          range "1..max";
        }
        must '. >= min-slot-width-factor' {
          error-message
            "Maximum slot width must be greater than or equal to
            minimum slot width.";
        }
        description
          "Slot width range: two multipliers of the slot width ,
          granularity, each indicating the minimal and maximal slot
          width supported by a port, respectively.

          Maximum slot width is calculated by:
            Maximum slot width (GHz) =
              max-slot-width-factor * slot-width-granularity

          If specified, maximum slot width must be greater than or
          equal to minimum slot width.";
        reference
          "RFC8363: GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in Support of Flexi-Grid
          Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks";
      }


Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
The shepherd writeup highlights that YANGDOCTORS reviewed this twice, but the last one was five versions and almost a year ago.  Should this be refreshed?

[To the IESG:] The shepherd writeup also confirms the intended status, but doesn't answer the question as to why that's the right answer for this document.  This seems to be a common mistake.  Should the writeup change to make it clear we'd like that question answered?  Or should we just include this in the things we check during AD Evaluation?

[Ballot comment]
[To the IESG:] The shepherd writeup confirms the intended status, but doesn't answer the question as to why that's the right answer for this document.  This seems to be a common mistake.  Should the writeup change to make it clear we'd like that question answered?  Or should we just include this in the things we check during AD Evaluation?

The shepherd writeup also highlights that YANGDOCTORS reviewed this twice, but the last one was five versions and almost a year ago.  Should this be refreshed?

[Ballot comment]
[[ nits ]]

[ section 3 ]

* "min-slot-width-factor" and "max-slot-width-factor" could each have their
  description be simplified to refer only their own definition (as opposed
  to the shared duplicated text).

  Also, I'm not sure how to read "...of the slot width , granularity,".
  Should that just be "...of the slot width granularity,"?

* "this constraints is reported" could use a grammar fix. I'm guessing
  "this constraint is reported"?

[Ballot comment]
Clearing my previous DISCUSS (about the absence of BCP 14 boilerplate) as there is no normative language in the document, there is obviously no need for the BCP 14 boilerplate...

Sorry about the fuzz... I need more coffee it seems !

Regards

-éric

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for the work done in this document.

I have only a single blocking DISCUSS that it trivial to fix: absence of BCP 14 boilerplate for a standards track document ;-)

Suggestion to the authors: add the BCP14 boilter plate and re-upload a revised version before other IESG members' evaluations.

-éric

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-layer0-types
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-layer0-types
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the YANG Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

a new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-layer0-types
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-layer0-types
Prefix: 10-types
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-09-30):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, Daniele Ceccarelli , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane
WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Layer
0 Types'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-09-30. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a collection of common data types and groupings
  in the YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types and
  groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model Layer 0
  optical Traffic Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities
  such as Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) and Flexi-grid
  Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Yes, Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document defines a collection of common data types and groupings
  in the YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types and
  groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model Layer 0
  optical Traffic Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities
  such as Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) and Flexi-grid
  Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
No issue. The working group and the chairs decided to exclude from the draft some parameters that are not yet fully stabilized (e.g. transponders) and focus only on the networking part. This will unlock a number of topology drafts. A new document including those parts will be submitted and eventually merged with this via an RFC-bis. The process was agreed with the OPS AD.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
The document is supported by all the major vendors active in the working group. Moreover it was reviewed by the YANG Doctors twice. The first after WG adoption to check that the document was on the right path and the second one as part of preparation for last call.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Daniele Ceccarelli
Responsible AD: Deborah Brungard

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The document is ready for publication. Minor issues have been identified that can be resolved together with the post WG last call reviews.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
None

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns or issues.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
None.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
Strong concurrence.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No one.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
All fixed. Just one warning left on unused reference. The editor has been asked to fix them.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
YANG doctor review performed twice.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The IANA section requests for the allocation of a URI from the IETF XML registry and a YANG module in the YANG module  names registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
The YANG doctor appointed to the review of the document is Robert Wilton (rwilton@cisco.com)

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
Yang validation.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Pyang reports 0 errors and 0 warnings

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Yes, Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document defines a collection of common data types and groupings
  in the YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types and
  groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model Layer 0
  optical Traffic Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities
  such as Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) and Flexi-grid
  Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
No issue. The working group and the chairs decided to exclude from the draft some parameters that are not yet fully stabilized (e.g. transponders) and focus only on the networking part. This will unlock a number of topology drafts. A new document including those parts will be submitted and eventually merged with this via an RFC-bis. The process was agreed with the OPS AD.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
The document is supported by all the major vendors active in the working group. Moreover it was reviewed by the YANG Doctors twice. The first after WG adoption to check that the document was on the right path and the second one as part of preparation for last call.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Daniele Ceccarelli
Responsible AD: Deborah Brungard

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The document is ready for publication. Minor issues have been identified that can be resolved together with the post WG last call reviews.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
None

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns or issues.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
None.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
Strong concurrence.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No one.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
All fixed. Just one warning left on unused reference. The editor has been asked to fix them.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
YANG doctor review performed twice.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The IANA section requests for the allocation of a URI from the IETF XML registry and a YANG module in the YANG module  names registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
The YANG doctor appointed to the review of the document is Robert Wilton (rwilton@cisco.com)

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
Yang validation.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Pyang reports 0 errors and 0 warnings