[CCAMP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-27: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 02 December 2020 03:01 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98F23A1003; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:01:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <160687809573.31155.1143740516058121434@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 19:01:35 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/st8wAXEkF7O4DwpBwfN9xfqzRII>
Subject: [CCAMP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-27: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 02 Dec 2020 03:01:43 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-27: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


These changes would have been much easier to review if we could just
issue a new version of te-types that included the WSON label and type
information!  But I recognize that such a thing is not done lightly and
so the current structure came to be.  That said, I assume that some kind
of automated tooling has been used in order to verify that the set of
augmented nodes is complete.  If not, that should probably be done
before publication.

Section 3

I greatly appreciate the attention to detail that went into this YANG
module.  It is sadly all too common for (e.g.) the description to not be
updated when using copy/paste to repeat a stanza for a similar sibling
node (such as a range's start/end), but these all look to have the
description match the node name.  Thank you!

     augment "/nw:networks/tet:te/tet:templates/"
           + "tet:link-template/tet:te-link-attributes/"
           + "tet:underlay/tet:primary-path/tet:path-element/tet:type/"
           + "tet:label/tet:label-hop/tet:te-label/tet:technology" {
         "Augment TE label hop for the underlay primary path
          of the TE link template.";

Why do we not need to limit this/these to when the te-topology is of
WSON type?  Is it because this is only a link template and not an actual

Section 4

   There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
   writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
   default).  These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
   in some network environments.  Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
   to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative
   effect on network operations.  These are the subtrees and data nodes
   and their sensitivity/vulnerability:

I think we need another sentence or two more here, to expand on the
nature of the "negative effect on network operations".  (My
understanding is that, basically, if these values are set improperly, no
data will pass at all, but please confirm that.)

We should probably also incorporate (by reference) the security
considerations of the underlying WSON technologies.


I couldn't find where tet:te-bandwidth is used/referenced.

Section 7.1

I'm having trouble coming up with criteria that make [ITU-Tg6982] a
normative reference of this document but not of the layer0-types
companion document.  Should it be classified the same way in both
documents?  (My preference would be to reclassify it to normative in
layer0-types, I think.)

Section 7.2

We refer to RFCs 7446 and 7581 for enough things that they seems more
properly categorized as normative.  (Not least, for terminology.)