Hi Radek, Thanks for your YD review and comments We have addressed them in the -12 revision that we have submitted close to the IETF 110 cut-off deadline Please find detailed answers in line below Italo/Haomian/Aihua (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). > [Authors] It should have been fixed with the latest update of layer1-types. There are no more errors/warnings in the IETF datatracker > 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. > [Authors] We have remove both groupings in the -12 revision > 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. > [Authors] Since most of the YANG tree definitions are coming from the groupings defined in layer1-types, we have updated section 3 to reference the descriptions in the layer1-types draft and to describe only the few attributes defined in this draft > 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. > [Authors] We have updated section 6 in the -12 revision of the draft > 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. > [Authors] We have triggered some discussion within CCAMP and TEAS WG mailing lists to address this comment. We will update the model based on the outcome of that discussion. > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
