Re: [CCAMP] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-03.txt

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

Getting there!

Abstract
The IESG have takent to asking for something of the like of
This YANG model is NDMA-compliant.
at the end of the Abstract

1.Introduction

NETCONF gets a mention but, as Security Consideratons says, RESTCONF is
also an option in which case I think it should appear here (unless you
think it inappropriate in which case I also think it should appear
here!).

1.2
   The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in
   [RFC6020].
Nope try RFC 7950

YANG terminology is a mess at present.  RFC8342 has redefined some terms
and not others so that
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf
just references RFC8342 and says no more; that RFC does define

 o client
 o server

but does not define

 o configuration data
 o state data
 o augment
 o data model
 o data node

I think that the best you can do for now is to reference RFC7950 and
RFC6241.


You need a Note to the RFC Editor asking them to change the date to the
date of publication in two places in both modules - by that time, there
should be only the one revision clause in each module stating 'Initial
Version' although up until then, you go on inserting clauses for the
different versions of the I-D; I would still add the Note now.


You need reference clauses in the YANG module - having references in
Section 1.4  is not enough as the YANG module has to be complete in
stand alone ASCII - see how
    draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang
handles this

      leaf time-interval {
        type int16;
mmm I do not see how int16 can count up to 2,419,200 ; int64 sis seem
excessive but I think that int32 is needed


Since
'one way severely errored second'
is the ITU-T term, then I think that you should have the ITU-T reference
direct and not expect the reader to think of looking to see if it is in
the MEF reference

   [MEF-L1CS] "Subscriber Layer 1 Connectivity Service Attributes",
             Working Draft (WD) v0.09 December 13, 2017.
does not enable me to locate the document;  MEF suggests MEF but I would
like more; look for example at how
   draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model
handles this


RFC6991 is an import and so needs to be a Normative not Informative
Reference for the I-D.


I have yet to go through the YANG modules in detail but it will be a
while before I have time to do that..

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leeyoung" <[e-mail]>
To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 4:01 PM


Hi Tom,

The draft has been updated yesterday. Please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang/?include_te
xt=1

See also the attached diff file that compares versions 4 and 5.

Please see inline for my specific comment to your comment. Let us know
if there are any other concerns you may have.



Thanks.

Young

-----Original Message-----
From: t.petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 11:31 AM
To: Leeyoung <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-03.txt



Thanks for fixing the indentation; much easier to comment on!



Two major thoughts.



First, how attached are you to l1, that is letter l followed by digit 1
?  I know it makes sense but I also know many contexts in which that
would not be allowed because the probability of confusion is so great,
with the digit being read as the letter i or letter l or the letter
being read as a digit  or ...  I think that this needs careful
consideration; I was making mistakes reading the I-D on the comfort of a
proper PC with good resolution etc (but with oldish eyes:-(



YL>> We can discuss this issue during the WG meeting in Montreal. I
don't have much preference on this.



Second, references need some work.  You identify the YANG modules as
version 1.1 but have an Informative Reference - must be Normative - to
YANG 1.0; confusing.  The Security Considerations are not the current
one;  e.g. you should reference RESTCONF and SSH. Might I suggest
looking at

draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-06 ? And the section does reference RFC6241 and

RFC6536 which I cannot see in the Normative References



YL>> I think we have addressed theses references issues.



s.1    controller via a Netconf[RFC6020] interface.

No; NETCONF is not RFC6020



YL>> Corrected.



In the identity coding func you reference clauses 49, 82 and such like -
these need reference clauses to the relevant specification in the YANG
module.  This probably applies to most of these definitions (although
one comprehensive reference to any one document would suffice).



YL>> We put the MEF reference in the YANG module as well as in the
Reference Section from which all the terms and the original references
for specific clauses can be checked.



You need YANG reference clauses for

  import ietf-yang-types

and

  import ietf-l1-mef-service-types {



YL>> This was already done in Section 1.4. Let us know if this is what
you meant.



Likewise I recognise e.g. 'one way severely errored second' as a
technical term of the ITU-T; if that is what you intend, then these all
need a reference to the current ITU-T Recommendation.  If not, more
explanation is needed



YL>> It is indeed ITU-T term. The MEF document referenced has the
original ITU-T references.



You need YANG reference clauses for

  import ietf-yang-types

and

  import ietf-l1-mef-service-types {



YL>> I think this is the same comment as above.



Besides this,

- the running footing tells me that this is valid until 2028.



YL>> I am not sure which one you are pointing. If this is not fixed with
the revision, please let us know which one you are referring to.



-s 1.4 references [This I-D]

Suggest RFC XXXX (and add a note up front to the RFC Editor asking them
to replace XXXX with the number assigned to the RFC)



YL>> We corrected. See Section 1.4 for this.



-  grouping protocol-coding-optical_interface {

    description  "describes <p,c,o>";

p c o are not expanded in the YANG module - they need to be



YL>> We added description for each term.



-  grouping subscriber-l1vc-sls-service-attribute {

    description

      "The value of the Subscriber L1VC SLS (Service Level

        Specification) Service Attribute expressed in a 3-tuple

        of the form.";

leaves me asking what form does the 3-tuple take?



YL>> We added comment that the 3-tuple is <p,c,o>.



-      leaf time-interval {

        type int64;

        units seconds;

        description "a time interval (e.g., 1 month) ...

int64 is a lot of seconds and anyway cannot be used to express a month
since a month is a number of different lengths.  If a month is a
sensible time (seems long to me) then change it to 28 day and give the
value for 28 day in second and perhaps provide a default as that.  And
how about a range limiting this to something sensible (lest a typo sets
it to 2028 years)



YL>> We added an example with 28 days and changed int64 to int 16.



-      leaf subscriber-l1vc-ep-id-1 { type string;

        description "subscriber end point ID";  }



      leaf subscriber-l1vc-ep-id-2 { type string;

        description "subscriber end point ID"; Spot the difference - I
can't!



YL>> we added "subscriber end point ID for one end" and "subscriber end
point ID for the other end" to differentiate these two terms.

-  container l1cs

This is the sort of identifier I expect to be frequently misspelt!



YL>>  I would stick to this for now until we have discussion in the f2f
meeting.



Enough for now



Tom Petch



----- Original Message -----

From: "t.petch" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

To: "Leeyoung" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2018 9:07 PM

Subject: Re: [CCAMP] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-03.txt





> Young

>

> The most significant comment, for me, is the one about the

indentation;

> there came a point where I gave up trying to follow the I-D because it


> was so hard, so fix that and likely more comments will follow:-)

>

> Tom Petch

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Leeyoung" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> To: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:43 PM

>

> > Hi WG,

> >

> > This revision had some error in the date field in the yang model. So

> it is corrected; Tom's comments will be incorporated in the next

version

> (04).

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Young

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of

> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 5:35 PM

> > To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-03.txt

> >

> >

> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts

> directories.

> > This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement

Plane

> WG of the IETF.

> >

> >         Title           : A Yang Data Model for L1 Connectivity

> Service Model (L1CSM)

> >         Authors         : G. Fioccola

> >                           K. Lee

> >                           Y. Lee

> >                           D. Dhody

> >                           D. Ceccarelli

> > Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-03.txt

> > Pages           : 24

> > Date            : 2018-06-21

> >

> > Abstract:

> >    This document provides a YANG data model for Layer 1 Connectivity

> >    Service Model (L1CSM).

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang/

> >

> > There are also htmlized versions available at:

> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-03

> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-03

> >

> > A diff from the previous version is available at:

> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-03

> >

> >

> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of

> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at

> tools.ietf.org.

> >

> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > CCAMP mailing list

> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > CCAMP mailing list

> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

>

> _______________________________________________

> CCAMP mailing list

> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp