Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02
review-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02-rtgdir-early-rogge-2016-05-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-05-19
Requested 2016-04-25
Draft last updated 2016-05-19
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -04 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Henning Rogge
State Completed
Review review-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02-rtgdir-early-rogge-2016-05-19
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2016-05-19

Review
review-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02-rtgdir-early-rogge-2016-05-19

Hi,



I have been asked to provide a review to the following document to the 


routing directorate mailing list.






Please be aware that this is the first time I work with YANG and related 


drafts.





Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02

Reviewer: Henning Rogge
Review Date: Mai 16th, 2016


Intended Status: Standards Track




The data structure suggested by the draft is reasonable and would fit 


most Layer2 network technologies. I have a couple of points on the draft 


document which might be worth looking into:






* The introduction in 


https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02




includes a link to "I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis" that links back to the 


draft document itself. Maybe some links in the document refer to an 


older name of the draft?






* the "termination-point" element only contains the types "ethernet" and 


"legacy" (which does not contain any data like mac-address). Is this 


reasonable or should a few data elements moved from the "ethernet" 


category to the "l2-termination-point-attributes" category?






* there are different types of VLAN tags be used... should there be 


another field ("vlan-type" ?) to announce 802.1ad QinQ usage? I think 


the 802.1ad tag is also sometimes also used to move VLAN over a switch 


that doesn't support it (unknown Ethertypes are usually just ignored), 


which means just knowing the VLAN-id is not enough to reach the endpoint.






* the type of ethernet (100, 1000, 10000) or data-rate could be an 


important attribute for an ethernet termination point, not only for links.





Henning Rogge
--
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Fraunhofer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685


mailto:henning.rogge

 at fkie.fraunhofer.de 

http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de





Attachment:


smime.p7s




Description:

 S/MIME Cryptographic Signature