Re: [CCAMP] YANG doctor review

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

Some more thoughts on layer0-types

The list in section 2.1 is quite long and I do not discern any
underlying logic as to what order they might be in in which case, I
suggest alphabetic within what kind of item they are, e.g.
2.1.1  typedef
2.1.2  identity
2.1.3. grouping

This would, for example, put the wson items together which at the moment
they are not.

In passing, the I-D is inconsistent about what it is defining.
"common data types and groupings"
"data nodes and other data model objects"
"common Layer 0 TE types"
"YANG reusable types and groupings"
"typedef, identity and grouping statements"

Perhaps 'common Layer 0 YANG typedefs, identities and groupings'.

The order in the YANG module should match that of section 2.1

Also, the list mixes Capitals and lower case; since the corresponding
YANG names are all lower case, then I think this section should be lower
case.

The hyphenation is consistent, which is good.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "tom petch" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:29 PM

> Looking at layer0-types, as one who is not a YANG doctor, I see
>
> Introduction makes it clear that this is for optical layer0; Abstract
> misses the work 'optical' which I think that it should include.
>
> Module references G.694.1 which I cannot see in the I-D references
>
> Generally, the YANG reference clauses are usually matched by
Normative,
> not Informative, references
>
> Where section 2.1 provides references for the types and groupings,
then
> I would see it as essential that those references appear as YANG
> reference clauses for the types and groupings; most do not appear in
the
> YANG module e.g. for vendor identifier, wavelength assignment, layer0
> grid type, term type, fec type etc etc
>
> If you think that a reference is needed in section 2.1, and I agree
with
> you that they are, then logically the same references must appear in
the
> YANG module since the YANG module is a stand-alone piece of text that
> will be divorced from the rest of the I-D/RFC
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniele Ceccarelli"
> <daniele.ceccarelli=[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:56 AM
>
> > WG,
>
> >
> > We're requested the YANG doctor review of:
> >
> >  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types/>
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types/
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/
> >
> > BR
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniele
> >
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------
>
>