[i2rs] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 03 July 2020 10:20 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietf.org
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 353B63A0BDE; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 03:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology@ietf.org, i2rs-chairs@ietf.org, i2rs@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.7.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <159377165718.24109.1201006715538224191@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 03:20:57 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/p-td8Cs_XEiGbei8ClhJiN1HK90>
Subject: [i2rs] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf?= =?utf-8?q?-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:20:58 -0000

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below a couple on non-blocking COMMENTs (and I would appreciate a
reply to each of my COMMENTs because for some of them I was close to ballot a
DISCUSS).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==

== COMMENTS ==

Generic: is there a reason why the YANG validation results in 19 errors and 4
warnings? Sue Harres (the shepherd) mentions in her write-up that 9 errors are
linked to missing IEEE but what about the 10 remaining errors ?

Has there been a review by IEEE of this YANG model? While the shepherd is
extensive and detailed, there is no mention of a coordination with IEEE.

-- Section 3 --

  "The Layer 2 (L2) network topology YANG module is designed to be
   generic and applicable to Layer 2 networks built with different L2
   technologies."
Is this statement correct? What about LoraWAN, Sigfox, and other LP-WAN
technologies? Or technologies that may be using different MTU sizes on each
direction? or having more parameters than this (such as being NBMA that should
be captured).

Should "sys-mac-address? " rather be "management-mac-address? "

I must admit that I am not familiar with the ietf-topology YANG model, so, the
following COMMENTs can be plain wrong :-( ...

It is unclear to me the difference between 'node' and 'termination-point'. If
not defined in the ietf-topology, then please define before first use (I had to
read the YANG module to understand).

Why is 'ethernet' used rather than 'ieee802', notably to cover IEEE 802.11 ?

While most termination points have a single MAC address, are we sure that no
termination point will ever have more than one MAC address ?

'rate' leaf is in Mbps and with 2 decimals, i.e., the lowest rate is 10 kbps
and this is already higher than some layer-2 links. Any reason to ignore lower
rate links ?

-- Section 4 --
"leaf maximum-frame-size" please specify whether Ethernet pre-amble,
inter-frame gap, and CRC should be included. The text for Ethernet and for PPP
are identical, so, why repeating it ?

== NITS ==

Sometimes 'L2' is used, sometimes 'Layer 2' is used. Not very consistent ;-) I
am not an English speaker, but, I believe 'Layer 2 topology' should be written
'layer-2 topology'