Early Review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22
review-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22-rtgdir-early-dukes-2024-01-23-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | 22 (document currently at 24) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2024-01-23 | |
Requested | 2024-01-02 | |
Requested by | Vishnu Pavan Beeram | |
Authors | Young Lee , Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Igor Bryskin , Bin Yeong Yoon | |
I-D last updated | 2024-01-23 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -22
by Darren Dukes
(diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -10 by Andy Bierman (diff) |
|
Comments |
Requesting Early Routing Area Directorate Review |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Darren Dukes |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/IrMzLIzoH9KntUEvwm_yAmpG_IU | |
Reviewed revision | 22 (document currently at 24) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2024-01-23 |
review-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22-rtgdir-early-dukes-2024-01-23-00
I reviewed this draft and appreciate the effort that went into the document. I did not find any major issues with this draft and only a few minor issues/nits. =========================== Minor Section 1 - Is the TE model an Abstract TE model (vs underlay or overlay) as per RFC8795? If so can you elaborate on that? Section 2.2 For some VN members of a VN, the customers are allowed to configure the actual path (i.e., detailed virtual nodes and virtual links) over the VN/abstract topology agreed mutually between CNC and MDSC prior to or a topology created by the MDSC as part of VN instantiation. - Please rewrite this sentence, "MDSC prior to or a topology", I could not parse the intended meaning. Section 2.2 - Please provide a definition for S1-S11. I believe they're abstract nodes as defined in an abstract TE model as per RFC8795. ============================ Nits Section 4.3.1 - Is there a reason for the difference in names for path-affinities-values vs path-affinity-names - could/should you make affinity names consistent? if so please do. - Please replace all MSDC with MDSC