Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22

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)
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
Reviewed revision 22 (document currently at 24)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-01-23
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.


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.


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