[Lime] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 25 October 2017 16:16 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lime@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916E9138AED; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam@ietf.org, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>, lime-chairs@ietf.org, cpignata@cisco.com, lime@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150894820355.4690.17296396047014675861.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:16:43 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/V4pUhF6Z3YPQYBp46RYvo9eMbhQ>
Subject: [Lime] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." <lime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lime/>
List-Post: <mailto:lime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:16:43 -0000
Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-14: 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-lime-yang-connectionless-oam/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for your work on this document. I have a number of serious concerns - but they all amount to fixing up your references and slight restructuring for clarity and reuse. 1) In Sec 3.1, the reference is system-id to represent the device or node.[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-yang] I believe that should be "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."; }" from draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types. Certainly "[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-yang]" is NOT an informative reference with such a dependency. I see that this document actually redefines router-id, instead of using it as part of the included import from import ietf-routing-types { prefix rt; } On p.27, I see "leaf system-id { type rt:router-id; description "System ID assigned to this node."; }" so it is using the routing-yang-types, but renaming it as system-id, there. Consistency isn't just the hobgoblin of little minds - it's actually useful. In choice to-location, again "case system-id { leaf system-id-location { type router-id; description "System id location"; } description "System ID";" using the locally defined router-id and renaming it instead of using rt:router-id. 2) On p. 13 & 14, there are many identities associated with time and time-stamps. I cannot believe that the best way to handle these is by having them as part of an OAM model! At a minimum, they should be defined as a separate module and then included, even if it is in the same draft. Then they will be available for reuse elsewhere. 3) This is extending [I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo] - I do not believe this should be merely an informative reference. 4) I cannot tell if I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ni-model is informative or normative; it is not referenced in the draft - though there are fields that are labeled NI without adequate description. 5) [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-routing-types] is not an informative reference. Its module is imported and used. It must be normative. 6) [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-yang] is listed as an informative reference, but if it were actually used as described, it would need to be normative. Instead, I believe this can be removed as a reference. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- a) Sec 3.8: It is unfortunate that the cc-session-statistics-data structure is not a list of {traffic type, cc-session-statistics} instead of hardcoded members for IPv4 and IPv6 traffic only. While it can still be extended for additional traffic types, the naming may be inconsistent and there's no requirement that the contents are cc-session-statistics. b) On p.9: " +--:(system-id) | +--rw system-id-location? router-id" Why isn't this just named router-id instead of system-id, for consistency? This comment applies throughout the draft. c) The use of "tp" to mean test-point is a bit unfortunate in a model that is building off of the network topology one, which uses "tp" for termination-point. d) On p. 13: "identity address-attribute-types { description "This is base identity of address attribute types which are ip-prefix, bgp, tunnel, pwe3, vpls, etc."; }" I haven't a clue what is meant by a bgp address attribute type or a tunnel one. Can you please expand the description to be substantially more meaningful? How is it used? On p. 24, I see these defined " case bgp { leaf bgp { type inet:ip-prefix; description "BGP Labeled Prefix "; } } case tunnel { leaf tunnel-interface { type uint32; description "VPN Prefix "; } } case pw { leaf remote-pe-address { type inet:ip-address; description "Remote pe address."; } " but unlike the other cases with clear descriptions and references to the relevant RFCs, these are NOT clear and do not even fully expand acronyms. e) "grouping tp-address-ni " Please expand what NI is the abbreviation for in the description.
- [Lime] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-lime-yan… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Lime] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-lime… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Lime] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-lime… Qin Wu
- Re: [Lime] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-lime… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Lime] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-lime… Qin Wu