Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-05-16
Requested 2016-04-25
Other Reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by John Drake (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Kent Watsen (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -14 by Ines Robles (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -14 by Kent Watsen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -18 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -18 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -18 by Qin Wu (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Ines Robles
Review review-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-02-rtgdir-early-robles-2016-05-16
Posted at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/msg02913.html
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 19)
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2016-05-16
Review completed: 2016-05-16



QA review related to Data Model for Network Topologies I-D:

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-02.txt

Reviewer: Ines Robles

Review Date: May 9, 2016

Intended Status: Standards Track


 I have some minor concerns about this document that should be resolved before publication.


I believe the draft is technically good. Thinking how it could be extended for constrained topology networks, e.g. RPL build a DODAG (Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph) and I like that the links  are point-to-point and unidirectional, and like "One common requirement concerns the ability to represent that the same device can be part of multiple networks and topologies." a RPL node can participate in several DODAGs and in each one can have different role.

Major Issues:

I have no “Major” issues with this I-D.

Minor Issues and Nits:

1- Section 1, following Figure 2:

 1.1- " X1 and X2 - mapping onto... ",  I think it would be "X1 and X3 mapping onto..."

 1.2- " a single L3 network element", I would add in this case [Y2] "a single L3 [Y2] network element", the same for "The figure shows a single "L3" network element mapped onto multiple "Optical" network elements.", I would add "The figure shows a single "L3" [Y2] network element mapped onto multiple "Optical" network elements [Z] and [Z1]."

2- Section 2:

 2.1- I would add a reference to RFC 6020, since the document uses terminology e.g container, augment, etc. which are defined in 6020. Even if this RFC is mentioned in the normative reference, still I would add it here as well. 

 2.2- In terminology you mention ReST, for this I would add the reference for further information. "Fielding, Roy Thomas. "Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures." PhD diss., University of California, Irvine, 2000.". 

ReST is mentioned here but not in the rest of the draft, is it correct?

3- Section 5: What about add the security considerations mentioned in 6020?

4- In general: I would mention as related work and the relation with this draft: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02, draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-01 and draft-contreras-supa-yang-network-topo-03 (this one is expired)

Thank you,