Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-05-19
Requested 2016-04-25
Authors Jie Dong, Xiugang Wei, Qin Wu, Mohamed Boucadair, Anders Liu
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)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Stig Venaas (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -13 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -14 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Henning Rogge 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02-rtgdir-early-rogge-2016-05-19
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 18)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2016-05-19



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 


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 


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


 at fkie.fraunhofer.de 





 S/MIME Cryptographic Signature