[i2rs] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-11: Discuss

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-l3-topology/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary note: I hope I'm doing the right thing by updating this DISCUSS
point as  I understand that the document is back to the WG. However, since I
reviewed the version 11, since some of my ballot points have been addressed
(thank you), and since I wanted to share my feedback publicly, here is my
feedback.

1. The examples.
In the AUTH48 for the RESTCONF RFC, the example YANG module discussion came up
(again).  And the examples in draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology were also
discussed. Here is the feedback from one YANG doctor, from a couple of days ago.

Look at this:

   module example-ietf-ospf-topology {
     ...
     namespace
       "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:example-ietf-ospf-topology";
     ...
     description
       "This module defines a model for OSPF network topologies.
        Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
        authors of the code.

They are using the IANA-controlled namespace w/o registering it.

This module *really* looks like a proper normative module, rather than an
example.  They went to far in trying to mimic a real module.

It is clear that we need more guidelines in 6087 for how to write
example modules.

I was going to ask if this module passed YANG doctor review - then I
checked and saw that version -02 was reviewed, which didn't include
this example.  How should we (the YANG doctors) handle such a case?

In this case they should:

  1.  change the name to example-ospf-topology
  2.  change the namespace to urn:example:ospf-topology
  3.  remove the top-level statements:
          organization, contact, revision

  4.  change the top-level description to what the text in the draft
      says:

      description
        "This module is intended as an example for how the
         Layer 3 Unicast topology model can be extended to cover
         OSFP topologies.";

(same for the other example module)

As I mentioned to the authors, respective chairs and AD already, we should
follow the decision in this NETMOD email thread
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg17428.html This will
hopefully resolve fast. Once settled, the examples should be updated.

4.

       leaf-list router-id {
           type inet:ip-address;
           description
             "Router-id for the node";
         }

My initial DISCUSS was: We don't want to wait for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-00 (btw, we should
expedite this publication), but any good reason why this is aligned with its
definition?
    typedef router-id {
       type yang:dotted-quad;
       description
         "A 32-bit number in the dotted quad format assigned to each
          router. This number uniquely identifies the router within an
          Autonomous System.";
     }

My NEW DISCUSS: since is in IETF LC and on the telechat on Oct 12th, it makes
sense to import its router-id


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

- YANG definition "YANG: A data definition language for NETCONF"
I would use:
   YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration data,
   state data, Remote Procedure Calls, and notifications for network
   management protocols [RFC7950]

- There are multiple slightly different definitions of the datastore in
the different RFCs.
Let's not add to the confusion.
Pick one (RFC6241 should be the latest one) and mention the reference.

- section 7
OLD:
The moodel defines
NEW:
The model defines