Re: [Last-Call] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-16

[[e-mail]]

Hi Yingzhen,

Many thanks for the review. 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : mardi 24 mai 2022 01:28
> À : [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Objet : Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-16
> 
> Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
> draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
> routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and
> IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the
> review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing
> ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any
> other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to
> resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-16
> Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
> Review Date: 05/23/2022
> IETF LC End Date: unknown
> Intended Status: Standards Track
> 
> Summary:
> Thanks to the authors for working on this document. I think it's
> almost ready for publication. There is one error in the appendix
> A.2 example that should be fixed before publication, and there are
> a few minor issues/nits that may be considered before publication.
> 
> Major Issues:
> 
> Appendix A.2:
> libyang[0]: Node "ldp-pw-type" not found as a child of "ldp-or-
> l2tp" node.
> (path: Schema location
> /ietf-l2vpn-ntw:l2vpn-ntw/vpn-services/vpn-service/vpn-nodes/vpn-
> node/signaling-option/signaling-option/ldp-or-l2tp/ldp-or-l2tp,
> data location /ietf-l2vpn-ntw:ldp-or-l2tp, line number 61.) This
> should "t-ldp-pw-type".
> 

[Med] Good catch. Fixed. Thanks.

> General Comment:
> A lot of descriptions about nodes exported from RFC9181 in section
> 7 are redundant from RFC9181.

[Med] We tried to find a balance between pointing to RFC9181 and ease the readability of the document. 

> 
> Minor Issues and Nits (line numbers are from idnits):
> 
> 397        Also, the L2NM uses the IANA-maintained modules "iana-
> bgp-l2-encaps"
> 398        (Section 8.1) and "iana-pseudowire-types" (Section 8.2)
> to identify a
> 399        Layer 2 encapsulation type.
> 
> [nits]: encapsulation type and pseudowire type.
> 

[Med] ACK. Changed to "encapsulation and pseudowire types"

> 409        view of the L2VPN service.  Such a view is only visible
> within the
> 410        service provider and is not exposed outside (to
> customers, for
> 411        example).
> 
> [nits]: Visible within/visible to

[Med] Fixed, thanks.

> 
> 500        'name':  Sets a name to uniquely identify an ES within
> a service
> 501           provider network.  This name is referenced in the
> VPN network
> 502           access level of the L2NM (Section 7.6).
> 
> [major]: I don't see where the "name" is referenced.

[Med] This is called here:

                       +--rw group* [group-id]
                       |  +--rw group-id                       string
                       |  +--rw precedence?
                       |  |       identityref
                =====> |  +--rw ethernet-segment-identifier?   string


A.4 provides an example how the segment is created and then how the name is called in the L2NM.

Updated the text with a pointer to that appendix. 

> 
> 577        The 'vpn-profiles' container is used by the provider to
> maintain a
> 578        set of common VPN profiles that apply to VPN services
> (Section 7.2).
> 
> [nits]: to be consistent with section 7.2: to maintain/to define
> and maintain
> 

[Med] OK. 

> 629        This document does not make any assumption about the
> exact definition
> 630        of these profiles.  The exact definition of the
> profiles is local to
> 631        each VPN service provider.
> 
> [nits]: These two sentences should be rewritten to be concise.

[Med] OK, shortened to: 

"The exact definition of these profiles is local to each VPN service provider."

> 
> 2785             leaf name {
> 2786               type string;
> 2787               description
> 2788                 "Includes the name of the Ethernet Segment
> (ES).";
> 2789             }
> 
> [nits]: please update the description

[Med] Updated to:

          "Includes the name of the Ethernet Segment (ES) that 
           is used to unambiguously identify an ES.";

> 
> 3824                   container active-global-parameters-profiles
> {
> 3825                     description
> 3826                       "Container for a list of global
> parameters
> 3827                        profiles.";
> 3828                     list global-parameters-profile {
> 3829                       key "profile-id";
> 3830                       description
> 3831                         "List of active global parameters
> profiles.";
> 3832                       leaf profile-id {
> 3833                         type leafref {
> 3834                           path "../../../../../global-
> parameters-profiles"
> 3835                              + "/global-parameters-
> profile/profile-id";
> 3836                         }
> 3837                         description
> 3838                           "Points to a global profile defined
> at the
> 3839                            service level.";
> 3840                       }
> 3841                       uses parameters-profile;
> 3842                     }
> 3843                   }
> 
> [question]: profile-id is a leafref to the "global-parameters-
> profile", where grouping "parameters-profile" is already
> included/used, why is it used here again? is it for configuration
> overwritten?
> 

[Med] We need to call out a specific profile (and use the same id) to be activated at the node level. Some of the parameters will be overridden. 



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.