Re: [CCAMP] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11

Italo Busi <> Wed, 03 March 2021 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38023A1B0D; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:07:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jZ8X0K5cjDRK; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 988B23A1B12; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DrRHt4pttz67vK6; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 05:01:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:07:13 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.006; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:07:13 +0100
From: Italo Busi <>
To: =?utf-8?B?J1JhZGVrIEtyZWrEjcOtJw==?= <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11
Thread-Index: AQHWo8D6Q7hPfgllik2Zktak6N3XfapzmdTQ
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 21:07:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 21:07:18 -0000

Hi Radek,

Thanks for your YD review and comments

We have addressed them in the -12 revision that we have submitted close to the IETF 110 cut-off deadline

Please find detailed answers in line below

Italo/Haomian/Aihua (on behalf of co-authors)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Radek Krejčí via Datatracker []
> Sent: venerdì 16 ottobre 2020 15:33
> To:
> Cc:;; last-
> 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).

[Authors] It should have been fixed with the latest update of layer1-types. There are no  more errors/warnings in the IETF datatracker

> 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.

[Authors] We have remove both groupings in the -12 revision

> 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.

[Authors] Since most of the YANG tree definitions are coming from the groupings defined in layer1-types, we have updated section 3 to reference the descriptions in the layer1-types draft and to describe only the few attributes defined in this draft

> 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.

[Authors] We have updated section 6 in the -12 revision of the draft

> 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.

[Authors] We have triggered some discussion within CCAMP and TEAS WG mailing lists to address this comment. We will update the model based on the outcome of that discussion.