Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-05
review-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-05-yangdoctors-early-moberg-2017-06-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-03
Requested revision 03 (document currently at 18)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2017-02-28
Requested 2017-02-07
Requested by Mehmet Ersue
Authors Deepak Kumar , Zitao Wang , Qin Wu , Reshad Rahman , Srihari Raghavan
Draft last updated 2017-06-01
Completed reviews Secdir Telechat review of -11 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -05 by Carl Moberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -13 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carl Moberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-05-yangdoctors-early-moberg-2017-06-01
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 18)
Result On the Right Track
Completed 2017-06-01
review-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-05-yangdoctors-early-moberg-2017-06-01-00
I am the assigned YANG Doctor for the LIME YANG modules, this is the notes from
my initial review of draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam done with the
authors on a call last week:

The module is intended to be implemented as a service model, per the module
classification draft
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-05)
with augments to topologies, I suggest it needs more description on the general
concepts and how to use it.

I suggest to remove the 'OAM data hierarchy' section. It does not add any
information.

The current version YANG module is all configuration except the 'oper' subtree.
And there are no mandatory nodes (except list keys) which seems to allow for
many, many combinations that likely make no sense. Please re-review and make
sure this is an informed choice.

Suggest to rename tp-address-type-value to tp-address-technology-type.

Why does 'grouping tp-technology' only allow 'technology-null' or
'technology-string'/'leaf ipv4-icmp' and what is the meaning of the leaf
ipv4-icmp content?

There are a couple of occasions of 'ordered-by user' that does not have a
description of the meaning of the order. Please review.

Add an if-feature on path-discovery in *-methods draft.

Generally I'd suggest adding more information about the various types and which
specifications you are picking them up from (e.g. RD, LSP ID, etc)

The specification defines a typedef that is a path in another module
("routing-instance-ref"). Suggest to reach out to authors of
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-02 to see if they want the -ref type in that module
for reuse.

Generally check whitespace and comments. Use the '-f yang' option to YANG to
fix whitespace.

Downcase "IPv4-Multicast-Group-Address", and "IPv6-Multicast-Group-Address",
"IP-Multicast-Group-Address"

Name of top container ('oper') not very helpful, suggest renaming to
'session-statistics'?

Spelling of grouping (and uses) cc-session-statsitics

Filename should include revision in CODE BEGINS

Don't reference drafts, pleas check RFC6087 bis and well-formed drafts for
header stmts
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis#section-4.9'