Thanks, Dhruv, Tom and Daniele.
We will work through these comments and fix the 'when' statements.
BR, Dan.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: 18 August 2022 17:22
To: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx
Cc: ccamp@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang-13
Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review result: Has Issues
# RTGDIR review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang-13
## Major
- None
## Minor
- Section 1, Introduction states ".."media-channel" defined in [RFC9093]."; I did not find "media-channel" in 9093. - Section 2, Terminology: suggest combining the text related to RFC7950 together, something like - ````
The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in
[RFC7950]. The following terms are defined in [RFC7950] and
are not redefined here:
* client
* server
* augment
* data model
* data node
````
- Also consider adding TTP, LTP, etc in the Terminology
- Section 4
- the purpose of this section is not clear to me. Are you trying to justify
why a topology model is needed? - Further, I suggest avoiding using the
phrase - "We define..", "we do..". - Maybe you could add some example
values for yang parameters for flexi-grid to make it more useful
- Section 6, to increase the readability of the YANG tree, I suggest breaking them up and grouping similar augmentations together. - Security consideration section needs work
- it only mentions "rw", there are "ro" elements as well but not listed in
the security section. - List the impact on the system as well - In the list
of "rw", you list the paths where augmentation is done and not the new
leafs added via augmentation. I think the focus should be on the incorrect
flex-grid parameters setting at each of these levels.
## YANG Model
- The YANG model compiles with no error and is formatted correctly.
- Happy to report that all the required places in ietf-te-topology model that requires augmentation are done. My eyes did hurt a bit after this exercise :) - The description in the YANG model is not the same as in the rest of the document, specifically: "This module provides a YANG data model for the routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) Traffic Engineering (TE) topology in flexi-grid optical networks.". There is no mention of RWA anywhere else. - The use of the absolute address in the when would be incorrect as you want to make sure that the current network is with the flexi-grid-topology! Everywhere else it is a relative path. ````
augment "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/tet:te"
+ "/tet:te-node-attributes" {
when "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types"
+ "/tet:te-topology/flexgt:flexi-grid-topology" {
description
"Augmentation parameters apply only for networks with
flexi-grid topology type.";
}
description "Augment TE node attributes.";
container flexi-grid-node {
presence "The TE node is a flexi-grid node.";
description
"Introduce new TE node type for flexi-grid node.";
}
}
````
- I notice a few augmentations do not have a when clause, I could not figure out why these ones should not... ````
augment "/nw:networks/tet:te/tet:templates/"
+ "tet:link-template/tet:te-link-attributes/"
+ "tet:label-restrictions/tet:label-restriction" {
description
"Augment TE label range information for the TE link template.";
uses l0-types:flexi-grid-label-range-info;
}
:
:
augment "/nw:networks/tet:te/tet:templates/"
+ "tet:link-template/tet:te-link-attributes/"
+ "tet:underlay/tet:primary-path/tet:path-element/tet:type/"
+ "tet:label/tet:label-hop/tet:te-label/tet:technology" {
description
"Augment TE label hop for the underlay primary path
of the TE link template.";
case flexi-grid {
uses l0-types:flexi-grid-label-hop;
}
}
augment "/nw:networks/tet:te/tet:templates/"
+ "tet:link-template/tet:te-link-attributes/"
+ "tet:underlay/tet:backup-path/tet:path-element/tet:type/"
+ "tet:label/tet:label-hop/tet:te-label/tet:technology" {
description
"Augment TE label hop for the underlay backup path
of the TE link template.";
case flexi-grid {
uses l0-types:flexi-grid-label-hop;
}
}
augment "/nw:networks/tet:te/tet:templates/"
+ "tet:link-template/tet:te-link-attributes/"
+ "tet:label-restrictions/tet:label-restriction/"
+ "tet:label-start/tet:te-label/tet:technology" {
description
"Augment TE label range start for the TE link template.";
case flexi-grid {
uses l0-types:flexi-grid-label-start-end;
}
}
augment "/nw:networks/tet:te/tet:templates/"
+ "tet:link-template/tet:te-link-attributes/"
+ "tet:label-restrictions/tet:label-restriction/"
+ "tet:label-end/tet:te-label/tet:technology" {
description
"Augment TE label range end for the TE link template.";
case flexi-grid {
uses l0-types:flexi-grid-label-start-end;
}
}
augment "/nw:networks/tet:te/tet:templates/"
+ "tet:link-template/tet:te-link-attributes/"
+ "tet:label-restrictions/tet:label-restriction/"
+ "tet:label-step/tet:technology" {
description
"Augment TE label range step for the TE link template.";
case flexi-grid {
uses l0-types:flexi-grid-label-step;
}
}
}
````
## Nits
- The use of the word "database" in the abstract stood out to me. Apart from abstract you dont use that word anywhere else. - I suggest removing the NMDA statement from the abstract, you have it covered in the Introduction. - s/it augments [RFC8795]/it augments ietf-te-topology model [RFC8795]/ - For all RFC-editor notes, suggest adding a prefix "[Note to RFC-EDITOR:]". - I suggest changing the title of section 5 - "YANG Data Model for Flexi-Grid Topology" to "Overview of Flexi-Grid Topology Model". The actual model is in section 7 and this would avoid any confusion. You can collapse section 5.1 also. - Expand on first use: WDM - Section 5.1; s/augments from a more/augments a more/
This review is also available at -
https://notes.ietf.org/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang?view
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
