Hi all,
We have got a YANG doctor review comment on OTN topology YANG model advocating that "modules from a common group could use some common and obvious rules for prefixes" (see mail below).
While the comment seems reasonable to us, we have noted that, up to now, there are no such rules, as summarized in this table:
| TE | OTN | WSON | Flexi-Grid | ETH-TE | MPLS-TE | |
| Topology | tet | otntopo | wson | flexi-grid | ethtetopo | tet-mpls |
| Tunnel | te | otn-tunnel | wson-tunnel | flexi-grid-media-channel | eth-tunnel | te-mpls |
| Path Computation | te-pc |
In order to have such common rules, the prefixes could be changed as:
| TE | OTN | WSON | Flexi-Grid | ETH-TE | MPLS-TE | |
| Topology | tet | tet-otn | tet-wson | tet-flexig | tet-eth | tet-mpls |
| Tunnel | te | te-otn | te-wson | te-flexig | te-eth | te-mpls |
| Path Computation | tep | tep-otn | tep-wson | tep-flexig | tep-eth | tep-mpls |
It is worth noting that
- the prefix used by TE topology cannot be changed since it has been already published as RFC8795
- we do not know whether we can change the prefix for the WSON topology since the draft has already passed IETF Last Call (our assumption is that this would still be possible)
We would like to gather CCAMP and TEAS WGs opinion about whether:
- Having common rules for TE YANG modules is valuable
- The proposed prefixes are acceptable
Aihua, Haomian and Italo (on behalf of co-authors)
-----Original Message-----
From: Radek Krejčí via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: venerdì 16 ottobre 2020 15:33
To: yang-doctors@xxxxxxxx
Cc: ccamp@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11
Reviewer: Radek Krejčí
Review result: Ready with Issues
This is my yang doctor review of draft draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11 with the ietf-otn-topology@2020-09-21 YANG module.
Despite the size of the module, its structure is very simple repeatedly following a pattern of augmenting ietf-te-topology by groupings defined in ietf-layer1-types module.
Datatracker's validation with yanglint reports a number of warnings, but they are false positive (fixed in yanglint 1.9.16 - the fixed version still reports warnings, but they are all from the imported ietf-layer1-type module).
My only note to the module itself is about the two defined groupings - I'm not sure about the reusability of the groupings in other modules. If the reusability is not the concern, I don't see any reason to define them.
Regarding the draft, as a reader, I would appreciate a more targeted description in section 3. Instead of just dumping the tree diagram in section 3.2, it would be useful to split it into several areas with some brief descriptions and examples.
The list of paths is introduced in Section 6 as "the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability", but I don't see explained/described the mentioned sensitivity/vulnerability of those paths.
The prefix of the YANG module (also referred to in Section 7 ) - 'otntopo' - seems inconsistent to me. The relevant ietf-te-topology has 'tet' (so I would expect 'otnt' here), on the other hand, the ietf-otn-tunnel has 'otn-tunnel'
prefix (then I would expect 'otn-topo' prefix here). The 'otntopo' seems to introduce just another format. As a reader/user, I would prefer if the modules from a common group could use some common and obvious rules for prefixes.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
