Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-25

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 28)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2020-07-03
Requested 2020-06-22
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Authors Haomian Zheng, Young Lee, Aihua Guo, Victor Lopez, Daniel King
Draft last updated 2020-07-12
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Last Call review of -15 by Acee Lindem (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -25 by Lou Berger (diff)
Prep for IETF Last Call
Assignment Reviewer Lou Berger 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-25-rtgdir-lc-berger-2020-07-12
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 25 (document currently at 28)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2020-07-12


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related 
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and 
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide 
assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing 
Directorate, please see 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it 
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF 
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through 
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-25.txt
Reviewer: Lou Berger
Review Date: July 12, 2020
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Proposed Standard


I have a minor concern about this document that I think should be 
resolved before publication.


This seems to be a straight forward YANG model that augments 
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo with basic WSON information.  I think it 
may be hard for those not intimate with optical switching, and TE to 
follow, but no so for those working with these technologies.  I have one 
question/issue that I think that should be resolved before publication.

Major Issues:


Minor Issues:

I may be missing something, but it seems to me that there are number of 
elements/leaves marked rw that should be ro.  For example are  
reconfigurable-node or grid-type really going to be writable?  If I 
understand the model correctly, there will be some cases there leaves 
under grid type will be writable -- in this case shouldn't the grid-type 
case  statements be limited to the label-restriction/grid-type?

Again, please let me know if I'm missing something.


I'm marking this comment as a nit as it is somewhat stylistic. I'm not a 
fan of defining groupings that are unlikely to be reused.  'grouping 
wson-node-attributes' is used once - I suggest just moving the container 
(or even just the leaf) to the one place it is used in the model.

I also note that the YANGdoctor review comments are out of date and 
should be revisited.

That's it!