Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Last Call Review: draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

Why is this review on [e-mail] and not on [e-mail]?

Tom Petch
________________________________________
From: rtgwg <[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: 29 November 2023 16:03
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RtgDir Last Call Review: draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang

Hello,

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 https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir
<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-ospf-sr-yang-22
Reviewer: Julien Meuric
Review Date: 2023-11-29
Intended Status: Standard Tracks


*Summary:*

This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.


*Comments:*

- The very first paragraph of the introduction/overview section
summarizes the basis of YANG, XML, JSON, data models... I believe we are
now far beyond those general considerations and we could skip that
paragraph.
- In the grouping "ospfv3-lan-adj-sid-sub-tlvs" (p23), the leaf
"neighbor-router-id" uses type "dotted-quad". This is consistent with
RFC 8666 which specifies the associated OSPFv3 TLV, but we had a
discussion about the type for router-id in the TE YANG models. The
current resolution on TEAS side will be to consider a union of
dotted-quad and ipv6-address. I wonder how much RTGWG would be ready to
consider a superset of the existing OSPFv3 TLVs.


*Nits:*

- Multiple times in description: s/SR specific/SR-specific/
- Multiple times in description: s/flag bits list/flag list/
- Multiple times in description: s/flags list/flag list/
- The description fields use a mix of "Adj sid", "adj sid", "Adj SID"...
sometimes with hyphens (not to mention the full expansions). A single
phrase should be chosen and used all along the module.
- A few description starts with "The..." (e.g., in
"ospfv2-extended-prefix-range-tlvs" on p 19, or v3 on p 22) while most
of them don't. For consistency, it should be dropped from every brief
description.

- In the grouping "ospfv3-prefix-sid-sub-tlvs" (p 21 and all resulting
pieces of tree): s/perfix-sid-sub-tlvs/prefix-sid-sub-tlvs/
- In the same grouping, the description of the container should be
"Prefix SID sub-TLV *list*." (and "Prefix SID sub-TLV." reserved for the
following list element).
- In the container "ti-lfa" (p 25): s/Enables TI-LFA/Enable TI-LFA/ [Not
wrong, but should be consistent with others.]
- In the same container (p 26): "s/Topology Independent Loop Free
Alternate/Topology-Independent Loop-Free Alternate/
- In section 3 (p 37): s/The YANG modules [...] define/The YANG module
[...] defines/
- In the same section: s/in the modules/in the module/
- In the same section: s/Module ietf-ospf-sr/The module ietf-ospf-sr/


Thanks,

Julien