Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11-yangdoctors-lc-krejci-2020-10-16-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | 11 (document currently at 20) | |
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 , Sergio Belotti , Victor Lopez , Yunbin Xu | |
I-D last updated | 2020-10-16 | |
Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -11
by Radek Krejčí
(diff)
|
|
Comments |
Would it be possible to have a joint review with: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-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 topology model. Thanks! |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Radek Krejčí |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/CFoAjnS3XqdF4frVetuKe_83iVk | |
Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 20) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2020-10-16 |
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11-yangdoctors-lc-krejci-2020-10-16-00
This is my yang doctor review of draft draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11 with the ietf-otn-tunnel@2020-03-09 YANG module. Despite the size of the module, its structure is very simple repeatedly following a pattern of augmenting ietf-te by groupings defined in ietf-layer1-types module (except the single grouping defined in the module itself). Validation tools report a number of errors in the module. The problem is, that the module references (in augments) /te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel/te:p2p-primary-paths/ and /te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel/te:p2p-secondary-paths/ which are not present in current ietf-te@2020-07-12 module (the nodes were removed in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-23, the reference in the Section 10 of the draft is to draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-25 but the module is not in line with this revision). So the module needs a crucial update. Also please consider if the grouping otn-tunnel-attributes is reusable in other modules. If the reusability is not the concern, I don't see any reason to define it instead of specifying the grouping content directly in the augment. 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. Besides that, the paths include '..' as ellipsis, but '..' has its usual meaning in paths, please unify it with the format used in ietf-otn-topology and use '...'.