Hi Ines, Thank you very much for the detailed review and comments. We've uploaded new versions of the draft that will address them (latest version -08). Diff that shows changes is @ https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-06.txt&url2=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-08.txt Please see inline for further responses and do let us know if there are further comments. On 4/2/19, 3:39 AM, "Teas on behalf of Ines Robles via Datatracker" <teas-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: Reviewer: Ines Robles Review result: Has Nits The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-06.txt Reviewer: Ines Robles Review Date: 02/04/2019 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and clear to understand. The draft is quite complete. The document defines a collection of common data types and groupings in YANG data modeling language. These derived common types and groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model Traffic Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities. I found some minor nits and have some minor questions, it would be nice if they could be addressed. Major issues: Not found Minor issues: Not found Nits/editorial comments: - NBMA could be expanded in pag 14 NBMA (Non-broadcast multiple-access network) or maybe added into Acronyms and Abbreviations section. Same for SF (pag 32), SD (Pag 33), APS (pag 35) and PM (pag 46) [TS]: Added into acronyms, and expanded when necessary. -In Pag. 43 identity oduc --> identity oducn ? [TS]: fixed. - In pag 45, default forward --> default "forward" ? [TS]: fixed. - Pag 58 ihe --> the , ranage --> range [TS]: fixed. Questions: - In te-admin-status (pag. 12) is the status "unknown" not applicable in here? [TS]: We think it's useful so to identify a status that is not explicitly defined. We have added it. - In te-recovery-status (pag 17) the status reversion-succeeded woud be not necessary in this case, cause we have recovery-succeeded status available? [TS]: We have added reversion-succeeded to explicitly indicate successful completion of reversion. - In pag 25, the lsp-state-type does not have a reference is that ok?, because it is used as base for other parameters. [TS]: Yes, in general the intention was the derived from base indentities would be explicitly referenced. - In general, I see some parameters that do not have reference specified, it is because the reference is already specified in the base, for example, pag 25, objective-function-type has reference, but then of-minimize-load-path, of-maximize-residual-bandwith do not have it. Is it because by default is the one of the base, in this case RFC4657? or it is because they are defined in this document? But for example lsp-protection-type is used as base and does not have reference added. [TS]: Yes, as mentioned earlier, identities derived would be explicitly referenced. That said, I went ahead and made sure missing references are added. -In pag. 34, in the description for protection-external-commands, should include in the description the word "base", since it is used as base. [TS]: addressed as per suggestion. - In pag. 55 the description "RFC 3209 and others", should be added additional rfcs, instead of "others"? [TS]: yes, replaced others by the intended RFCs. Regards, Tarek Thanks for this document, Ines. _______________________________________________ Teas mailing list Teas@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
