Re: [i2rs] [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate QA review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Henning, 

Thanks a lot for your review and sorry for the late response. Please see my replies inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zhangxian (Xian)
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 4:51 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [i2rs] FW: [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate QA review of
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology
> 
> To get the attention of draft authors and the WG to the following
> review/comments.
> 
> Thank Henning for the constructive comments.
> 
> Cheers,
> Xian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtg-dir [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Henning Rogge
> Sent: 2016年5月17日 15:07
> To: Zhangxian (Xian); [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail] >> Susan Hares
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate QA review of
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have been asked to provide a review to the following document to the
> routing directorate mailing list.
> 
> Please be aware that this is the first time I work with YANG and related
> drafts.
> 
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02
> 
> Reviewer: Henning Rogge
> Review Date: Mai 16th, 2016
> 
> 
> Intended Status: Standards Track
> 
> 
> The data structure suggested by the draft is reasonable and would fit
> most Layer2 network technologies. I have a couple of points on the draft
> document which might be worth looking into:
> 
> * The introduction in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02
> includes a link to "I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis" that links back to the
> draft document itself. Maybe some links in the document refer to an
> older name of the draft?

I found out that if you click the link in the main text, it will go to the reference at the end of the draft. Then if you click the link in the reference, it will open the 6020bis draft. Not quite sure why it works like this, but the draft name is correct in both places.

> * the "termination-point" element only contains the types "ethernet" and
> "legacy" (which does not contain any data like mac-address). Is this
> reasonable or should a few data elements moved from the "ethernet"
> category to the "l2-termination-point-attributes" category?

Good question. Previously we didn't add much data under the legacy type, but as you said, something like mac-address for Ethernet should also be included for legacy. We will consider this in next revision.

> * there are different types of VLAN tags be used... should there be
> another field ("vlan-type" ?) to announce 802.1ad QinQ usage? I think
> the 802.1ad tag is also sometimes also used to move VLAN over a switch
> that doesn't support it (unknown Ethertypes are usually just ignored),
> which means just knowing the VLAN-id is not enough to reach the endpoint.

In this draft an identityref " eth-encapsulation" is used to specify the Ethernet encapsulation of the termination point, which can be native Ethernet, QinQ, Mac-in-Mac, etc. For each encapsulation type, an identity is defined.

> * the type of ethernet (100, 1000, 10000) or data-rate could be an
> important attribute for an ethernet termination point, not only for links.

Yes, the data rate (bandwidth) of a link can be determined by the type/capability of the connected physical interfaces. 

While as this L2 topology model is designed to be applicable for both physical and virtual layer 2 networks, attributes of physical interfaces are not included.

Best regards,
Jie

> Henning Rogge
> --
> Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
> Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
> Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
> Fraunhofer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
> Telefon [phone],   Fax [phone]
> mailto:[e-mail] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
> 
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs