Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-device-model-02
review-ietf-rtgwg-device-model-02-rtgdir-early-ceccarelli-2017-05-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-device-model-02
Requested revision 02 (document currently at 02)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-04-28
Requested 2017-03-27
Requested by Jeff Tantsura
Authors Acee Lindem , Lou Berger , Dean Bogdanović , Christian Hopps
I-D last updated 2017-05-03
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Daniele Ceccarelli
Comments
The draft is ready for WGLC, your timely review would be appreciated
Assignment Reviewer Daniele Ceccarelli
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-device-model by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 02
Result Has nits
Completed 2017-05-03
review-ietf-rtgwg-device-model-02-rtgdir-early-ceccarelli-2017-05-03-00
Hello,

I’ve been selected as the QA reviewer for draft-ietf-rtgwg-device-model-02.

I believe the draft is well written and quite easy to understand, I just have
some minor suggestion that might be help improving the readability (mostly for
non subject experts).

-       Title: the title is not very clear, while the abstract explains very
well in the first sentence what the goal of the draft is, what about changing
it into: “A logical organization for network device YANG models” ? -      
Introduction: You are referencing an individual draft. This could be a block
for the draft, but most of all does it make sense to have two separate drafts
(in two different WGs), one to say the value of organizing YANG models  and the
other one defining a logical organization for the models? (maybe too late for
such change) -       Introduction: this sentence is a bit confusing: “  This
document refers to two new modules that are expected to be  implemented.  These
models are defined to support the configuration  and operation of
network-devices that allow for the partitioning of  resources from both, or
either, management and networking   perspectives.  Two forms of resource
partitioning are referenced:”
                Maybe a modules/models mismatch? You start saying that the doc
                refers to two MODULES, then you say that MODELS are defined and
                the list two FORMS OF RESOURCE PARTITIONING.
-       Intro: “    Should structural-mount/YSDL not be available, the more
explicit tree structure presented in earlier versions of this document will
need to  be utilized.” If it was described in previous versions of the document
it is no longer available, or ? -       Scope: as I got it while reading and as
it is confirmed in the draft, the scope is “limited”  to physical and virtual
switches and routers and not devices operating at the lower layers. Since you
say “we consider network devices that support protocols  and functions defined
within the IETF Routing Area” I would expect it to cover also lower layer
devices. -       Section 2: Section 2 and its subsection are very clear and
explain well the concepts but it is not clear where the list comes from. It
partially overlaps with the “overall structure” example above but at least
having all of them in the overall structure plus some others (provided as
example and not analyzed in the details with dedicated subsection ) would help.

BR
Daniele