[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-05

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the confirmation.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 1:50 PM Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Yingzhen
>
> On 5/28/24 7:05 PM, Yingzhen Qu wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Thanks for the review and comments. Version -07 has been uploaded to
> > address your comments. Detailed answers below.
>
> Version -07 has resolved my concerns.
>
>         Thanks,
>         Paul
>
> > Thanks,
> > Yingzhen
> >
> > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:51 AM Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq
> >     <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>.
> >
> >     Document: draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-05
> >     Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
> >     Review Date: 2024-05-27
> >     IETF LC End Date: 2024-06-04
> >     IESG Telechat date: ?
> >
> >     Summary:
> >
> >     This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in
> the
> >     review.
> >
> >     Disclaimer:
> >
> >     This reviewer is "YANG challenged". Hence I have not verified the
> >     syntax
> >     or semantics of the YANG content. I trust there has been or will be a
> >     separate review by a YANG expert.
> >
> >     ISSUES: 3
> >     NITS: 1
> >
> >     1) ISSUE - General
> >
> >     I find the language in this document to be extremely difficult to
> >     follow. (For instance, see the confusing language cited in the next
> >     issue.) The main problem is that it is formally referencing and
> >     defining
> >     terms/entities named using sequences of words and acronyms including
> >     spaces. (This includes YANG entities, IANA registry table names, and
> >     the
> >     names of entries in IANA registries.)
> >
> >     These terms are used in descriptions with nothing to distinguish them
> >     from the surrounding text. Hence it becomes a struggle to parse the
> >     text. I strongly recommend revising the document to syntactically set
> >     off the formal names of the entities being defined and referenced
> from
> >     the surrounding text. For instance: 'IGP MSD-Types'
> >
> > [Yingzhen]: Please see the answer to issue #2.
> >
> >     2) ISSUE - Confusing language in Section 1
> >
> >     I can't parse: "... defines the identities for Maximum SID Depth
> (MSD)
> >     Types as the IANA the IGP MSD-Types registry."
> >
> >     I still can't follow it even if I make the change I requested above:
> >
> >     "... defines the identities for Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Types as the
> >     IANA the 'IGP MSD-Types' registry."
> >
> >     . I *think* you might mean:
> >
> >     "... defines the identities for 'Maximum SID Depth (MSD)' Types in
> the
> >     IANA 'IGP MSD-Types' registry." But I am far from certain of this.
> >
> > [Yingzhen]: The first paragraph of section 2.1 has been written and
> > added information about the IANA registry. Hope it's clear now. If more
> > clarification is needed, please kindly let us know.
> >
> >     3) ISSUE - Possible missing IANA action
> >
> >     Section 4 defines a YANG module named 'iana-msd-types'. I *think*
> there
> >     is an intent to add this as a new entry in the IANA registry 'IGP
> >     MSD-Types'. But I don't find anything that does this. (I would expect
> >     something more in IANA Considerations.)
> >
> > [Yingzhen]: No, the YANG Model types represent the existing IANA
> > registry without modifying it.
> >
> >     4) NIT
> >
> >     The document heading shows "Workgroup: Internet" but shouldn't it be
> >     the
> >     MPLS WG?
> >
> > [Yingzhen]: fixed.
>
>