Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-01-31
Requested 2018-01-17
Authors Lou Berger, Christian Hopps, Acee Lindem, Dean Bogdanović, Xufeng Liu
Draft last updated 2018-01-25
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Martin Björklund (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Ravi Singh (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Taylor Yu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2018-01-25
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 10)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2018-01-25


This is a very useful, well thought and well written document, which reflects work and discussions within the RTG and OPS areas. From an operational point of view it's a very useful tool in support of network operators that will manage and configure logical elements. I believe that the document is almost ready, but there are a number of issues that are worth being discussed and addressed before approval by the IESG. 

1. The name and scope of the document as presented in the title and Abstract are not exactly reflecting the content. LNEs are not YANG LNEs as the title says, and the type of module (a YANG module) being defined is not stated in the Abstract. I would suggest that the document actually defines 'A Data Model and YANG Module for Logical Network Elements'. 

2. There is no reference and relationship definition in the document to the YANG Data Model for Hardware Management defined in Actually the LNEs are almost similar with the 'logical entities' that were dropped from the netmod-entity work. It is expected that in the future network operators will use both data models and the respective YANG modules when managing hardware devices on which logical network entities are being run. Even if this relationship is not explicitly present in the DM, I believe that it needs to be looked at and mentioned in the document. 

3. In Section 2 I see: 

'The logical-network-element module augments existing
   interface management model by adding an identifier which is used on
   physical interface types to identify an associated LNE.'

I am wondering why the mentioning of 'physical interface types' here. What if the interface type in not 'physical' representing a protocol layer or sublayer on the device? After all, if all interfaces to be considered were 'physical' we could have augmented the entity hardware module rather than the interfaces module, as all physical interfaces are represented there as well. 

4. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 seem to be written for the benefit and the perspective of the implementations writers rather than of the operators. Are there any hints, advice, or indications for the operators using the module to manage their LNEs? These could be described also in the examples appendices, which are otherwise very useful to illustrate and explain the models.