Hi Kamran,
Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to the next rev.
Happy Holidays!
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 10:10 AM Kamran Raza (skraza) <skraza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Yingzhen,
Thanks for your detailed review. We are addressing your comments as well as YD comments and plan to spin a new rev in new year.
Please see our response inline - tagged as [skraza]
On 2019-11-01, 5:25 PM, "mpls on behalf of Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker" <mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review result: Has Issues
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang
Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review Date: Nov 1st, 2019
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary:
This document is near ready for publication. It has some issues that should be
at least considered prior to publication.
Comments:
Thanks for working on this draft. As an active YANG contributor I appreciate
the work here.
Major issues:
I’m not sure whether this should be considered as a major issue, which is how
the document is structured. The draft separates the configuration and operation
states into two sections, and this seems to be a before NMDA product and a bit
redundant to me. The tree structures are used in different ways multiple times
in the document, and this significantly reduces the readability of the modules.
[skraza]: Ack. Will fix.
Minor Issues:
I feel the English in this draft could be improved, but I’m not a native
speaker. Maybe RFC editor will help with this?
It seems that “model” and “module” are used exchangeable in this document,
please make them consistent.
[skraza]: Ack. Will fix.
“YANG” should be capital cased, and there are “yang” at multiple places in this
document. Please fix them.
[skraza]: Ack. Will fix.
Please consider add names to figures.
[skraza]: Ack. Will fix.
I understand inheritance is an important feature of document. I’d suggest maybe
add a section/paragraph in “overview” to introduce the concept and how it works
instead of repeating the idea with examples in every major container design.
[skraza]: Ack. Will see how to address this.
Nits for your consideration:
[skraza]: Ack to all the below nits - will fix.
Rgds-
--
Kamran (on behalf of authors)
Section 1.1
Whereas, the "extended" category contains all other non-base features.
Please consider remove “all” because not all other features are covered.
Section 3
extended "ietf-mpls-ldp-extended" module that models the extended
LDP features and augments the base LDP
Please consider removed “extended” at the beginning, and add “module” at the
end, “augments the base LDP module”.
There are four main containers in our module(s):
I suppose you meant “four types of containers”?
Section 4
under LDP base and extended.
Please add a “module” at the end.
Section 5
Following is the high-level configuration organization for base LDP:
Please add a “module” at the end.
Typo in figure 3 “targeteted”
Typo in figure 4 “targeteted”
Given the configuration hierarchy, the model allows inheritance such
that an item in a child tree is able to derive value from a similar
or related item in one of the parent.
for grammar, it should be “one of the parents”, but this sentence is a bit
confusing. I’d suggest add a bit more explanation how inheritance work.
5.1.1
Missing period “.” at the end of the first sentence.
The tree showing here is not a complete tree, just want to make sure whether
this is intentional?
5.1.2
Missing period “.” at the end of the first sentence.
5.2.1.1
“LSR id” and “LSR Id” both are used here, please keep them consistent.
5.2.1.5
Missing “.” at the end of the first paragraph..
“A peer is uniquely identified using its
LSR Id and hence LSR Id is the key for peer list”
Please consider simplify the sentence to “A peer is uniquely identified by its
LSR Id.”
Section 6
“ Operational state of LDP can be queried and obtained from read-only
state containers that fall under the same tree (/rt:routing/
rt:control-plane-protocols/) as the configuration.”
This sentence is a bit confusing. Please consider revise it.
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
