Re: [CCAMP] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-02.txt

Leeyoung <> Thu, 21 June 2018 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77A7130E3B for <>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4F3r74XSWlw for <>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37FC1130DDD for <>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 203BB3E496A15 for <>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:39:24 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:39:25 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:39:22 -0700
From: Leeyoung <>
To: t.petch <>, "" <>
CC: "Martin, David (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUCVOX19bDXYirQkixN1jDXcUVEqRqtHKQ
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:39:21 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <026401d40953$3ea4a4a0$>
In-Reply-To: <026401d40953$3ea4a4a0$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:39:30 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thank you for providing good and constructive comments. I would take most of your concerns/comments; basically we have a good model to look after - microwave yang model :) 

In regards to your last comment on the protocol types grouping, I would defer to yang doctor review. The list is enumerated as flat by the MEF reference document: "Subscriber Layer 1 Connectivity Service Attributes", Working Draft (WD) v0.09 December 13, 2017. 

Best regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: t.petch [] 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 6:30 AM
To: Leeyoung <>om>;
Cc: Martin, David (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-02.txt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leeyoung" <>
To: <>
Cc: "Martin, David (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 4:49 PM

> Hi,
> The revision incorporated comments received from the last CCAMP
meeting and the MEF Q2 meeting in April.
> I believe the draft is stable.

I hope not:-)

I find it hard to read; the indentation is, for me excessive, causing lines to spill off the page.  You are indenting each lower level in the YANG model by 10 spaces whereas I would prefer you followed in the footsteps of draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang which uses two.

The tree diagram notation is now an RFC and I would expect you to reference that and not include your own notation, again as in draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang

5 Security Considerations needs to call out the sensitive nodes by name or say that there are none, again as in draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-.

The YANG modules need Copyright as in

The Introduction needs to say whether or not the YANG module is NMDA compatible, as in draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang

The import in the YANG modules should have reference statements, as in draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang

You need references in the I-D for YANG and Netconf, as in draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang

I would expect to see examples, as in

I think that some abbreviations should be expanded in the definitions  SLS UNI PE CE p,c,o

I wonder if the future would be simpler if the protocol types were grouped, eg into Ethernet, FiberChannel, STM etc.  It depends how they will be used, but I would expect there to be conditional statements based on these groups.Your view of what makes a sensible group will be better than mine but I think that the current flat structure is unlikely to be easy to use.  A comparable change was introduced after the YANG doctor review of draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang

Tom Petch

                                Please feel free to provide your feedback.
> Thanks & best regards,
> Young (on behalf of other co-authors)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 10:39 AM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-02.txt
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane
WG of the IETF.
>         Title           : A Yang Data Model for L1 Connectivity
Service Model (L1CSM)
>         Authors         : G. Fioccola
>                           K. Lee
>                           Y. Lee
>                           D. Dhody
>                           D. Ceccarelli
> Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-02.txt
> Pages           : 24
> Date            : 2018-06-20
> Abstract:
>    This document provides a YANG data model for Layer 1 Connectivity
>    Service Model (L1CSM).
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list