Early Review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-16

Request Review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-11-14
Requested 2016-09-29
Authors Stephane Litkowski, Luis Tomotaki, Kenichi Ogaki
Draft last updated 2016-11-14
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -16 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -17 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Nevil Brownlee (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -16 by Les Ginsberg (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -06 by Giles Heron (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Les Ginsberg 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-16-rtgdir-early-ginsberg-2016-11-14
Reviewed rev. 16 (document currently at 19)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2016-11-14



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. The purpose of the review
is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the 
Routing Directorate, please see 


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-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-17.txt
Reviewer: Les Ginsberg
Review Date: 12 October 2016
IETF LC End Date: 11 October 2016
Intended Status: Proposed Standard


This is a well written and excellent document - impressive both for its
attention to detail and its breadth.

I have one significant concern.
I have also identified a number of editorial issues.

I have not followed the work on this document nor am I subscribed to the WG
mailing list - so it is possible my comments do not account for some
discussions that have occurred as this document progressed.

Major Issues:
The document mentions in Section 7 that the definition of the service model
assumes that a number of YANG models for network elements will be provided.
In the list is "QoS : classification, profiles".

Looking at Section 5.12.2 of the document, it seems that the definitions
could easily conflict with the definitions which we would expect in a
network element QOS model (e.g., 



I wonder if it would be better to eliminate much of what is in this section of
the draft and defer to the QOS config model?

I would be interested in the authors views on this point.

Minor Issues:


I have prepared a "marked up" copy of the draft with a significant number
of recommended editorial changes. As the most expedient way to provide this is
by sending the entire document - and as that is large - I prefer not to send it
to such a wide audience. I will therefore send the marked up copy directly to
the authors. Anyone else who would like a copy please unicast me and I will be
happy to send it.