[ippm] Re: draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang-00 early Yangdoctors review

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Dear Martin, All,
Please note that I just submitted the new version of the draft to address the Yangdoctors early review (from Martin) and other comments received during the adoption call.

Additional reviews are welcomed.

Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola=[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 2:38 PM
To: Martin Björklund <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang-00 early Yangdoctors review

Dear Martin,
Thank you for your review.
First of all, let me highlight that this draft defines a separate YANG module for telemetry, that's why all nodes are read-only. The scope is to complement RFC9617 and draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang, which are models only for configuration. Note that we are also considering to split the current YANG module in order to augment the YANG modules of RFC9617 and draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang.

Regarding the issues you raised, please find my replies inline as [GF].

I plan to submit a new revision in the next days and I will keep you posted on that.

Regards,

Giuseppe


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Björklund via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 1:26 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang-00 early Yangdoctors review

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang
Title: On-Path Telemetry YANG Data Model
Reviewer: Martin Björklund
Review result: Not Ready

Here is my early YANG doctors review of
draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang-00.

There are some major issues that make it difficult to understand how this model is supposed to be used.  I will do a more detailed review once these are addressed.

First of all, the included tree diagram says that all nodes are config false, but in the data model all nodes are config true.  

[GF]: All nodes are config false and the reason is that this model is for telemetry and for monitoring On-Path telemetry information of AltMark (RFC9341) and IOAM (RFC9197). I will fix the data model and add "config false" for the overall container.

(also, the names of the nodes in the tree diagram don't match the module in many cases). 

[GF]: Maybe an oversight. I will check and correct.

What is the
intention?  Should all nodes be config false?   Including filters and node
actions?   

[GF]: Yes, I forgot to add "config false". The "config true" nodes are in the other models (RFC9617 and draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang).

The Security Considerations section seems to indicate that at least some nodes are config true.

[GF]: I will revise the security considerations too.

There is a global leaf "timestamp" which is described in the text as "the timestamp of the message".  How can a global leaf contain a timestamp of "the message"?

[GF]: The description is not accurate in this case. It is intended to be the starting time of the considered period. I will change it.

Most description statements contain basically no information.  For example:

       leaf direct-export-data {
          type ioam-trace-data;
          description
            "This object indicates the direct export data.";
       }

I suggest you expand the descriptions, and add references where applicable.

[GF]: Ok, I will review and add more information.

Finally I suggest you add some examples in an appendix that show how this model can be used.

[GF]: Ok

/martin