[Gen-art] draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-28 ietf last call Genart review

[Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Document: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation
Title: A YANG Data Model for requesting path computation
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Almost Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-28
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2026-09-02
IETF LC End Date: 2026-09-09
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:
This document defines a YANG data model to request TE path computation by
augmenting the TE tunnel RPCs. Major issues: None Minor issues:

- The document explains three related approaches: stateless path computation
RPC, optional transient state in the operational datastore, and compute-only TE
tunnel paths. The discussion is useful, but it is spread across Section 3.3 and
Section 3.3.1. A short comparison table or summary paragraph would help clarify
when each mechanism should be used. For example:
  The RPC is intended for stateless on-demand computation. The transient-state
  option is used when the client may later request setup of the same computed
  path. Compute-only tunnels are used when persistent tracking of the computed
  path is required.

- Section 3.3 says that path verification is always necessary because the path
set up later may not be exactly the same as the path previously computed. Does
this document defines any verification mechanism, or only requires/assumes that
verification is done by other mechanisms?

Nits/editorial comments:

- Section 1.1:
   s/“RFC number fpr”/“RFC number for”/
- Section 2:
   s/“The presented uses cases”/“The presented use cases”/

- Section 2.2:
   s/“inter-domains links”/“inter-domain links”/

- Section 3.3:
   s/“it is possible repeat the whole process”/“it is possible to repeat the
   whole process”/

- Section 3.3.1:
   s/“multi-domain path computation scenario scenarios”/“multi-domain path
   computation scenarios”/

- Section 4:
   s/“there could multiple choices”/“there could be multiple choices”/

- Section 5.3:
   s/“These attributes includes”/“These attributes include”/

- Section 5.4:
   s/“The models supports”/“The model supports”/

- YANG module description:
   s/“exiting te-tunnel”/“existing te-tunnel”/

- Security Considerations:
   s/“also applies to the use of this RPC”/“also apply to the use of this RPC”/

Best Regards,
Linda Dunbar