Reviewer: Gyan Mishra Review result: Ready with Issues I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-?? Reviewer: Gyan Mishra Review Date: 2020-08-20 IETF LC End Date: 2020-08-19 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The draft is well written and provides a very basic augmentation of the Yang core data modeling for routing management (NDMA) defined in RFC 8349 which provides the framework for managing routing subsystems. This drafts provides a new MPLS base model framework for managing MPLS routing subsystems, reflecting the mpls protocol specifications defined in RFC 3031 for future extensibility to Segment Routing architecture RFC 8200 and beyond. Major issues: The base mpls model defined in very BASIC as defined in the draft and does not reflect the data modeling of all attributes and features of the MPLS architecture defined in RFC 3031. I understand this draft defines the topmost transport label for MPLS forwarding however it does not fully represent all data models representing the LDP protocol. If the goal of this draft is to reflect RFC 3031 in its entirety it does not appear to do so. If the goal of the draft is to provide just the basics of the MPLS address family framework for future extensibility for MPLS specification as well and this draft is not the "end all be all" for the MPLS protocol specification and is just an introduction of the mpls base Yang model then I think this draft is ready for publication. Examples what I believe is missing in defining RFC 30301 in this MPLS base Yang model. Defining the Label stack and depth of the stack Since this topmost MPLS label can be LDP, Static or RSVP data model is mentioned but not in the context of label stack with multiple lables and that the topmost label based on LFIB forwwarding table could be either TE or LDP tompost label. Also mention of BOS -Bottom of Stack bit for the label stack. Implicit null label value 3 & Explicit Null label value 0 & QOS related to EXP marking related to uniform & pipe mode. I did not see any mention of EXP bits. Also LDP Downstream on demand versus Downstream unsolicited label distribution method MPLS LIB and FEC binding for LSP and data structure for LFIB entry local label & remote label learned via label mapping message. LDP label advertise, allocate, accept policy for /32 FEC binding to be only the loopback of iBGP peer FEC Destination. Label Imposition, Label Swapping & Label Disposition. MPLS LDP multicast extension mLDP - P2MP LSP Also BGP LU labeled unicast BGP being used for Label distribution and label binding for inter-as for topmost label binding inter-as stitching RFC 8277. Also context related to LDPv6 RFC 7552. Also softwire mesh framework RFC 5565 v6 edge over v4 core or v4 edge over v6 core and core transport being v4 or v6 and not both. Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: The draft is well written and serves a critical need to extend the Yang data modeling capabilities from existing IPv4 & IPv6 address families to MPLS address family framework. A XML file was not provided on the datatracker so I was not able to run idnits against the draft. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
