Early Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16-rtgdir-early-richardson-2023-03-17-00

Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-1 draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang

Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16.html and a last-call review of
draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-1.

I think that this is because the first document depends upon the second
document, and the second document is being advanced in order to be ready for
it to be included on other dochuments.

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication
to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s
lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends
on the stage that the document has reached.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
    see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
    which should now be somewhere in the new wiki!

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15
Reviewer: Michael Richardson
Review Date: 2023-03-17
Intended Status: standards track

Summary:

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.

Comments:

I found the document easy to read and understandable.
The last GPON stuff I did was in 2010, so I don't really know the details of
the technology anymore.

The interspersing of text into the YANG-tree output is an interesting way to
do things.  I was concerned as I read that this might mean that description
in the YANG itself might be weak, and I found this to be the case.  I don't
have a good answer as to whether detailed text in the YANG module is better
or worse.

Nits:

Section 4.2 has some odd formatting for the definition list, which I'm sure
the RPC will clean up.


Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16
Reviewer: Michael Richardson
Review Date: 2023-03-17
Intended Status: standards track

Summary:

I found the document rather difficult to read.
While I had just read layer1-types, and there is a nice Figure 1, then I saw
section 3, and my eyes blurred.

Comments:

I don't think that the YANG Tree display adds anything to the document as is.
Maybe if it had a softer walk-through like in layer1-types it would be more
useful.

I read the YANG, and it's among the most complex I have ever read.

I didn't know augment took +, and there are too many dependancies for me to
understand trivially what any of this code is doing.   That doesn't mean it's
wrong, rather than it's unlikely that anyone who is not very very deeply
steeped in this content will be able to make any determination as to whether
it's correct.

Nits:

None that I saw.