[CCAMP]Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-25 early Rtgdir review

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

HI Dhurv,

Thanks a lot for your review and comments

We have just uploaded a -26 version of the draft addressing them: see our detailed feedbacks in line below

Thanks, Italo (on behalf of co-auhtors/contributors)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: domenica 12 luglio 2026 00:37
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-25 early Rtgdir review
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model
> Title: A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network (OTN) Tunnels and
> Label Switched Paths Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody Review result: Has Nits
> 
> Hello
> 
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model/
> 
> 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.
> 
> As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to
> determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider
> my comments along with the other working group last call comments.
> 
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model
> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review Date: 2026-07-12
> Intended Status: Proposed Standards
> 
> ## Summary:
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has few nits that should
> be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.
> 
> ## Comments:
> 
> The document is generally well organized and readable. It clearly builds on
> the existing TE Tunnel YANG model and limits itself to OTN-specific
> augmentations, the document’s structure and organization make it relatively
> easy to follow.
> 
> RFC 9907 recommends usage examples for YANG modules, did the WG
> consider adding it?
> 

[Authors] We have added a JSON example in the latest draft update

> ## Nits:
> 
> - Dont use "OTN network", N is for Network.
> - Dont use "OTN transport networks" either :)
> 

 [Authors]

We have updated the text in the draft based on the mailing list discussion:

See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/kuyJvjDrOrPiGKwngQb7G5UJX2Q/

[/Authors]

> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>