Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11-yangdoctors-lc-krejci-2020-10-16-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 11 (document currently at 18) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
| Deadline | 2020-10-16 | |
| Requested | 2020-09-25 | |
| Requested by | Daniele Ceccarelli | |
| Authors | Haomian Zheng , Italo Busi , Xufeng Liu , Sergio Belotti , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios | |
| I-D last updated | 2020-10-16 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Telechat review of -18
by Watson Ladd
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Dan Romascanu (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Watson Ladd (diff) Genart Last Call review of -17 by Stewart Bryant (diff) Yangdoctors Last Call review of -11 by Radek Krejčí (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -16 by Michael Richardson (diff) |
|
| Comments |
Would it be possible to have a joint review with: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11 ? Both document specify YANG models for OTN networks, one is about topology and the other one about tunnels. I'll put the same request while asking for the review of the tunnel model. Thanks! |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Radek Krejčí |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/FvG3V0_fBzOhKPcvCpCThWHcLaA | |
| Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 18) | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2020-10-16 |
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11-yangdoctors-lc-krejci-2020-10-16-00
This is my yang doctor review of draft draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11 with the ietf-otn-topology@2020-09-21 YANG module. Despite the size of the module, its structure is very simple repeatedly following a pattern of augmenting ietf-te-topology by groupings defined in ietf-layer1-types module. Datatracker's validation with yanglint reports a number of warnings, but they are false positive (fixed in yanglint 1.9.16 - the fixed version still reports warnings, but they are all from the imported ietf-layer1-type module). My only note to the module itself is about the two defined groupings - I'm not sure about the reusability of the groupings in other modules. If the reusability is not the concern, I don't see any reason to define them. Regarding the draft, as a reader, I would appreciate a more targeted description in section 3. Instead of just dumping the tree diagram in section 3.2, it would be useful to split it into several areas with some brief descriptions and examples. The list of paths is introduced in Section 6 as "the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability", but I don't see explained/described the mentioned sensitivity/vulnerability of those paths. The prefix of the YANG module (also referred to in Section 7 ) - 'otntopo' - seems inconsistent to me. The relevant ietf-te-topology has 'tet' (so I would expect 'otnt' here), on the other hand, the ietf-otn-tunnel has 'otn-tunnel' prefix (then I would expect 'otn-topo' prefix here). The 'otntopo' seems to introduce just another format. As a reader/user, I would prefer if the modules from a common group could use some common and obvious rules for prefixes.