Re: [i2rs] WG LC on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo (9/27/2017 to 10/11/2017) - WG Consensus declared by Chairs

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

I didn't respond to Alex's response to my YANG Doctor review earlier, but I did
just now review his response to me against, taking into account the current
(-16) version of the draft.  Most everything has been addressed, thank you.
The remaining items that I think worthy of mentioning again are listed below.
The WG can do with them as they will.

1) "ietf-network" uses prefix “nd”, should be “nw” and "ietf-network-topology"
uses  prefix “lnk” should be “nt” or maybe “nwtp”.   There is a documented
convention for prefix naming.  Juergen shared it with me once before.  I can't
find it now.  In general, I don't think the "historic" status of something should
get in the way of doing what's right. In this case, it seems like a minor thing
though, but still…

2) the groupings "link-ref" and "tp-ref" descriptions should indicate why they
are defined but not used in these modules.

3) there are *no* examples in the document.  Every YANG module draft should
have examples of its YANG modules.  Suggest create examples for some use-cases
in Appendix A.

4) The document defines its own "datastore" term, rather than import the term
from revised-datastores. A lot of time has been put into getting the terms right
in revised-datastores, and any ambiguity here could be a problem.  On the other
hand, this draft already has revised-datastores as a normative reference, so likely
any ambiguity will be overlooked, but the issue disappears entirely by importing
the term.

5) Both /nd:networks/network/network-id and /nd:networks/network/link/link-id
are the key fields to their respective lists, but they are not the first nodes listed in
the list.   This is unusual, breaking a convention of some sort, though it might be
be an informal convention.  Just the same, why surprise the reader by going against
expectations?


Thanks,
Kent  // assigned YANG doctor




On 10/15/17, 3:26 PM, "i2rs on behalf of Susan Hares" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Greetings:

We’ve only received approval from this last call.  However, this is the 4th WG LC. All others have been positive and well-attended.  The draft has been kicked back for integration with security considerations and the NETMOD revised data stores.   We’ve resolved these issues.   This draft and the L3 Topology draft are key to other drafts.

The WG chairs plan  declare consensus on this draft, and send it to the IESG.  If anyone objects, please send email to the list by 10/20.

Susan Hares and Russ White