Re: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-25

[Aihua Guo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou,

Thank you for your review and comments. Please see below for our replies.

Best,
Aihua

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:15 AM Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
> sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
> assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
> Directorate, please see
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
> Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
> discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-25.txt
> Reviewer: Lou Berger
> Review Date: July 12, 2020
> IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
> Intended Status: Proposed Standard
>
> Summary:
>
> I have a minor concern about this document that I think should be
> resolved before publication.
>
> Comments:
>
> This seems to be a straight forward YANG model that augments
> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo with basic WSON information.  I think it
> may be hard for those not intimate with optical switching, and TE to
> follow, but no so for those working with these technologies.  I have one
> question/issue that I think that should be resolved before publication.
>
> Major Issues:
>
> None
>
> Minor Issues:
>
> I may be missing something, but it seems to me that there are number of
> elements/leaves marked rw that should be ro.

[AG] The authors believe that most of the parameters in WSON topology
should remain as rw to support the configuration of abstract WSON TE
topologies, or to allow clients to specify administrative constraints over
the advertised TE topology. This is following the same practice in the
generic TE topology model from which it augments, where an abstract TE
topology may be configured by the client and the relevant parameters are
set to rw.


> For example are
> reconfigurable-node or grid-type really going to be writable?

[AG] is-reconfigurable-node and grid-type remain as rw for the reason
above. For example, when configuring an abstract TE topology, one may
create a reconfigurable or fixed add-drop node based on a group of
reconfigurable nodes, or, create a fixed-grid abstract topology based on
flex-grid topology.


> If I understand the model correctly, there will be some cases there leaves
> under grid type will be writable -- in this case shouldn't the grid-type
> case  statements be limited to the label-restriction/grid-type?
>
[AG] Agree. A "when" condition is added into the case statement to validate
the label-restriction/grid-type.  However this change is made in
ietf-layer0-types and is not in this model.

>
> Again, please let me know if I'm missing something.
>
> Nit:
>
> I'm marking this comment as a nit as it is somewhat stylistic. I'm not a
> fan of defining groupings that are unlikely to be reused.  'grouping
> wson-node-attributes' is used once - I suggest just moving the container
> (or even just the leaf) to the one place it is used in the model.
>
[AG] Agree. The grouping is removed and the container is used directly.

>
> I also note that the YANGdoctor review comments are out of date and
> should be revisited.
>
> That's it!
>
> Lou
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp