IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang-03
review-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang-03-rtgdir-lc-hares-2025-04-04-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang-03 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 03 (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-03-10 | |
| Requested | 2025-02-10 | |
| Requested by | Daniele Ceccarelli | |
| Authors | Aihua Guo , Sergio Belotti , Gabriele Galimberti , Universidad Autonoma de Madrid , Daniel Perdices Burrero | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-10-20 (Latest revision 2025-10-20) | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -03
by Andy Bierman
(diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -03 by Susan Hares (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Susan Hares |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/J5n4iycT5asgPiTPgUoc6T9pm3o | |
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2025-04-04 |
review-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang-03-rtgdir-lc-hares-2025-04-04-00
This is an early review for the RTG-DIR. Status: Document is basically sounds and with both configuration and monitoring features for the WSDON and Flexi networks Some editions would help the yang module readability: 1. Comments on draft that contains imported modules (ietf-te, ietf-layer0-types, ietf-yang-types) 2. The references have problems since: a. the above dependent modules are not mentioned b. The yang tree description model (RFC8340) is not mentioned 3. One augment seems odd in the yang diagram: augment /te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel/te:primary-paths /te:primary-path/te:explicit-route-objects /te:route-object-exclude-always/te:type /te:numbered-node-hop/te:numbered-node-hop: It would seem natural to have …./te:numbered-node-hops:/te-numbered-node-hop. Rather than /te:numbered-node-hop/te:numbered-node-hop: I am having trouble tracking this down in the yang module. Andy Bierman has reviewed this model, so perhaps it is ok. It just seems odd. 5) The (multi) structures under grid-type for super-channels A second set of structures that are not easy to check are the (multi) structure below. My reading of the RFC8340 would indicate that (multi) – is the result of a choice (single or super channel) where the super-channel has a list of types:dwdm-n. ( RFC88340 * for a leaf-list or list). The data structure is reasonable. However, I’ve not seen a list of configured identity types in yang before. I am assuming that Andy Bierman (Yang Doctor) looked at this issue. +--rw (grid-type)? +--:(fixed-dwdm) | +--rw (fixed-single-or-super-channel)? | +--:(single) | | +--rw dwdm-n? l0-types:dwdm-n | +--:(multi) | +--rw subcarrier-dwdm-n* l0-types:dwdm-n Is it appropriate to a list of types? Give time allows, I will send in a second review to the RTG-DIR chairs after a deep dive into the model. I suspect that a deep dive has been done by Andy Bierman.