[CCAMP] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11

[Radek Krejčí via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Radek Krejčí
Review result: Ready with Issues

This is my yang doctor review of draft draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11
with the ietf-otn-tunnel@2020-03-09 YANG module.

Despite the size of the module, its structure is very simple repeatedly
following a pattern of augmenting ietf-te by groupings defined in
ietf-layer1-types module (except the single grouping defined in the module
itself).

Validation tools report a number of errors in the module. The problem is, that
the module references (in augments)
/te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel/te:p2p-primary-paths/ and
/te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel/te:p2p-secondary-paths/ which are not present in
current ietf-te@2020-07-12 module (the nodes were removed in
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-23, the reference in the Section 10 of the draft is to
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-25 but the module is not in line with this revision).
So the module needs a crucial update. Also please consider if the grouping
otn-tunnel-attributes is reusable in other modules. If the reusability is not
the concern, I don't see any reason to define it instead of specifying the
grouping content directly in the augment.

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. Besides that, the paths
include '..' as ellipsis, but '..' has its usual meaning in paths, please unify
it with the format used in ietf-otn-topology and use '...'.