Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14
Requested rev. 14 (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-07-28
Requested 2017-07-12
Requested by Russ White
Authors Alexander Clemm, Jan Medved, Robert Varga, Nitin Bahadur, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan, Xufeng Liu
Draft last updated 2017-07-24
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by John Drake (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Ines Robles (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)
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14-rtgdir-lc-robles-2017-07-24
Reviewed rev. 14 (document currently at 20)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2017-07-24



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 ‚Äč

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-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14.txt
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 07-25-2017
Intended status: Standards Track

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


I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and clear to understand. The figures are clear and helpful.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

Since this document specifies a data model, I would include some text related to the Information Model [RFC 3444]. How would it be in this context?

1- Section 1

  1.a following Figure 1 (Page 4):

    I would add in the figure the corresponding section that explain the module. e.g. Abstract Network Model, I would add in the figure "Abstract (base) Network Model" and "section 4.1".
    The same for "Abstract Topology Model", should it be section 4.2?

  1.b -following Figure 2 (Page 5):

      1.b.1- " X1 and X2 - mapping onto... ",  I think it would be "X1 and X3 mapping onto..."

      1.b.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" network element (Y2) mapped onto multiple "Optical" network elements [Z] and [Z1]."

      1.b.3- I would expand ROADMs --> Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplexers (ROADMs)

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.

3- Section 3:

  3.1-  ReST is mentioned here but not in the rest of the draft, is this correct?


1- Pag. 18: is that correct?: "(a string is a string is a string)"

2- pag. 34: I would expand NMS -> NMS (Network Management System)

3- pag. 34: I would add a definition about TE Topology : "TE-Topology: The TE Topology is a schematic arrangement of TE nodes
   and TE links in a given TED. It forms the basis for a graph suitable
   for TE path computations." []

4- pag. 34: topoogical -> topological

5- pag 35: "uber-network device" -> over-network device?