Re: [CCAMP] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Dear Michael, 

Thank you for the review

We agree with you that only someone that is deeply involved in the subject (in particular with RFC8795) can read the YANG code and we think there is anything specific that could be done to improve this document's readability

Again, thanks for the support and review. 

Authors, Haomian and Italo.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: venerdì 17 marzo 2023 20:22
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [CCAMP] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16
> 
> Reviewer: Michael Richardson
> Review result: Not Ready
> 
> Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-1 draft-ietf-
> ccamp-otn-topo-yang
> 
> Hello
> 
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of draft-ietf-
> ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16.html and a last-call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-
> layer1-types-1.
> 
> I think that this is because the first document depends upon the second
> document, and the second document is being advanced in order to be ready
> for it to be included on other dochuments.
> 
> The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
> perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to
> the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s
> lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review
> depends on the stage that the document has reached.
> 
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
>     see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>     which should now be somewhere in the new wiki!
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15
> Reviewer: Michael Richardson
> Review Date: 2023-03-17
> Intended Status: standards track
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
> considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> I found the document easy to read and understandable.
> The last GPON stuff I did was in 2010, so I don't really know the details of the
> technology anymore.
> 
> The interspersing of text into the YANG-tree output is an interesting way to
> do things.  I was concerned as I read that this might mean that description in
> the YANG itself might be weak, and I found this to be the case.  I don't have a
> good answer as to whether detailed text in the YANG module is better or
> worse.
> 
> Nits:
> 
> Section 4.2 has some odd formatting for the definition list, which I'm sure
> the RPC will clean up.
> 
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16
> Reviewer: Michael Richardson
> Review Date: 2023-03-17
> Intended Status: standards track
> 
> Summary:
> 
> I found the document rather difficult to read.
> While I had just read layer1-types, and there is a nice Figure 1, then I saw
> section 3, and my eyes blurred.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> I don't think that the YANG Tree display adds anything to the document as is.
> Maybe if it had a softer walk-through like in layer1-types it would be more
> useful.
> 
> I read the YANG, and it's among the most complex I have ever read.
> 
> I didn't know augment took +, and there are too many dependancies for me
> to
> understand trivially what any of this code is doing.   That doesn't mean it's
> wrong, rather than it's unlikely that anyone who is not very very deeply
> steeped in this content will be able to make any determination as to whether
> it's correct.
> 
> Nits:
> 
> None that I saw.
> 
> 
> 
>