Hi Dan,
Thanks much appreciated.
I thought I submitted to the IESG the version addressing the shepherd comments as well as the rtg-dir ones but probably it was addressing on the first ones.
Since the draft will go through other rounds of review (security, management etc.) I would suggest not to issue a new version now to avoid a misalignment between the actual version and the submitted one.
We can address the rtg-dir comments together with the ones coming from that reviews, just keep them ready.
Thanks
Daniele
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel King <dk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, 25 August 2022 15:01
> To: 'Dhruv Dhody' <dd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx; 'tom petch'
> <ietfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: ccamp@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang.all@xxxxxxxx; last-
> call@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang-13
>
> 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
