[CCAMP] Common rules for TE-related YANG modules prefixes (was Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11)

Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Wed, 21 October 2020 08:27 UTC

Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF6EF3A1374; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 01:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4jO6024ZV3FD; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 01:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC8A73A1370; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 01:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml732-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 0C9F6C1A4E03D28B79AB; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:26:55 +0100 (IST)
Received: from fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.59) by lhreml732-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:26:54 +0100
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) by fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:26:54 +0200
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:26:54 +0200
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: "'teas@ietf.org'" <teas@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
CC: "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Common rules for TE-related YANG modules prefixes (was Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11)
Thread-Index: Adang/ShaCXr97p0RfGEvolIEdqtpA==
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:26:54 +0000
Message-ID: <2f249df343f14c0799cccb38574914fe@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.80.116]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2f249df343f14c0799cccb38574914fehuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/a7grMRaVQYtP11RmdD2CSFdrU_Q>
Subject: [CCAMP] Common rules for TE-related YANG modules prefixes (was Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:27:01 -0000

Hi all,

We have got a YANG doctor review comment on OTN topology YANG model advocating that "modules from a common group could use some common and obvious rules for prefixes" (see mail below).

While the comment seems reasonable to us, we have noted that, up to now, there are no such rules, as summarized in this table:

        TE      OTN     WSON    Flexi-Grid      ETH-TE  MPLS-TE
Topology        tet     otntopo wson    flexi-grid      ethtetopo       tet-mpls
Tunnel  te      otn-tunnel      wson-tunnel     flexi-grid-media-channel        eth-tunnel      te-mpls
Path Computation        te-pc

In order to have such common rules, the prefixes could be changed as:

        TE      OTN     WSON    Flexi-Grid      ETH-TE  MPLS-TE
Topology        tet     tet-otn tet-wson        tet-flexig      tet-eth tet-mpls
Tunnel  te      te-otn  te-wson te-flexig       te-eth  te-mpls
Path Computation        tep     tep-otn tep-wson        tep-flexig      tep-eth tep-mpls

It is worth noting that
-       the prefix used by TE topology cannot be changed since it has been already published as RFC8795
-       we do not know whether we can change the prefix for the WSON topology since the draft has already passed IETF Last Call (our assumption is that this would still be possible)

We would like to gather CCAMP and TEAS WGs opinion about whether:

1)      Having common rules for TE YANG modules is valuable
2)      The proposed prefixes are acceptable

Aihua, Haomian and Italo (on behalf of co-authors)

-----Original Message-----
From: Radek Krejčí via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
Sent: venerdì 16 ottobre 2020 15:33
To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org
Subject: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11

Reviewer: Radek Krejčí
Review result: Ready with Issues

This is my yang doctor review of draft draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11 with the ietf-otn-topology@2020-09-21 YANG module.

Despite the size of the module, its structure is very simple repeatedly following a pattern of augmenting ietf-te-topology by groupings defined in ietf-layer1-types module.

Datatracker's validation with yanglint reports a number of warnings, but they are false positive (fixed in yanglint 1.9.16 - the fixed version still reports warnings, but they are all from the imported ietf-layer1-type module).

My only note to the module itself is about the two defined groupings - I'm not sure about the reusability of the groupings in other modules. If the reusability is not the concern, I don't see any reason to define them.

Regarding the draft, as a reader, I would appreciate a more targeted description in section 3. Instead of just dumping the tree diagram in section 3.2, it would be useful to split it into several areas with some brief descriptions and examples.

The list of paths is introduced in Section 6 as "the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability", but I don't see explained/described the mentioned sensitivity/vulnerability of those paths.

The prefix of the YANG module (also referred to in Section 7 ) - 'otntopo' - seems inconsistent to me. The relevant ietf-te-topology has 'tet' (so I would expect 'otnt' here), on the other hand, the ietf-otn-tunnel has 'otn-tunnel'
prefix (then I would expect 'otn-topo' prefix here). The 'otntopo' seems to introduce just another format. As a reader/user, I would prefer if the modules from a common group could use some common and obvious rules for prefixes.