Early Review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-integrity-yang-04
review-ietf-ippm-ioam-integrity-yang-04-yangdoctors-early-ma-2026-01-05-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-integrity-yang-04 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 04 (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
| Deadline | 2026-01-31 | |
| Requested | 2025-12-18 | |
| Requested by | Marcus Ihlar | |
| Authors | Justin Iurman , Tianran Zhou | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-08-07 (Latest revision 2026-05-08) | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Early review of -04
by Qiufang Ma
(diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -05 by Roni Even (diff) Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -06 by Qiufang Ma (diff) Intdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Satoru Matsushima (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Corey Bonnell (diff) |
|
| Comments |
Apologies for the request spamming, accidentally sent the first one early. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Qiufang Ma |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-integrity-yang by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/N9AqMiw6WRGNLxYKXMKAJBBPjzE | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | On the right track | |
| Completed | 2026-01-05 |
review-ietf-ippm-ioam-integrity-yang-04-yangdoctors-early-ma-2026-01-05-00
Hi, all,
This is my early review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-integrity-yang. Note I am not
an expert in IOAM, my review focuses primarily on the YANG data model.
The document is well-organized and easy to follow. The YANG module has passed
the pyang and yanglint validation, and the JSON examples provided are valid as
well. However, I am slightly concerned about the current model design which
seems to have duplicate definitions, e.g., the int-preallocated-tracing-profile
container defines its own node-action while the base ietf-ioam module already
provides one inside preallocated-tracing-profile, if a server supports both
feature preallocated-trace and int-preallocated-trace.
I wonder whether the WG have considered a simper modelling approach, such as:
OLD:
augment /ioam:ioam/ioam:profiles/ioam:profile:
+--rw int-preallocated-tracing-profile! {int-preallocated-trace}?
+--rw node-action? ioam-node-action
+--rw trace-types
| +--rw use-namespace? ioam-namespace
| +--rw trace-type* ioam-trace-type
+--rw max-length? uint32
+--rw int-method? iana-ioam-ipm:method-id
NEW:
augment
/ioam:ioam/ioam:profiles/ioam:profile/ioam:preallocated-tracing-profile:
+--rw int-method? iana-ioam-ipm:method-id {int-preallocated-trace}?
Or if the intent is to make a distinction, please consider adding constraints
to make sure containers like preallocated-tracing-profile and
int-preallocated-tracing-profile are mutually exclusive.
Sec.3.2 to sec.3.5, each subsection defines the int-method data node, and the
draft says it indicates which integrity protection method is used, but its type
definition uses the ID for the method and only includes method-0 without
specifying its semantic details, which may cause implementation ambiguities,
perhaps make this clearer and consider explicitly adding a reference where the
integrity protection method is formally defined.
Additionally, the int-method node is only effective when the node action is
action-encapsulate. Could you please clarify in the draft why it is not
required for other actions (e.g., action-transit)?
Best Regards,
Qiufang