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

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Julien - Thanks again for your review including and especially noticing perfix-sid-sub-tlvs.
 Now just waiting on Tom Petch’s promised WG last call review…

Acee

> On Dec 5, 2023, at 3:15 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi Acee,
> 
> I've looked at the diff: the new version looks good to me. Thanks to the update.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Julien
> 
> 
> On 01/12/2023 18:05, Acee Lindem wrote:
>> Hi Julien,
>> 
>> Thanks much for your review. I’ve incorporated almost all of your comments  in the -23 version.
>> 
>> See inline.
>> 
>>> On Nov 29, 2023, at 11:03 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> Removed  - thanks.
>> 
>> 
>>> - 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.
>> This is the OSPF Router-ID which is different from the OSPF TE Router-ID. The two should not be confused as the OSPF Router ID is simply a 32 bit unsigned integer that is typically represented in dotted quad format. It only need be unique within the OSPF Routing Domain. Conversely, the OSPF TE Router ID is a routable IPv4 or IPv6 address.
>> 
>> >From RFC 2328 (which was inherited by RFC 5340): 
>> Router ID
>> A 32-bit number assigned to each router running the OSPF
>> protocol. This number uniquely identifies the router within
>> an Autonomous System.
>> 
>>> 
>>> *Nits:*
>>> 
>>> - Multiple times in description: s/SR specific/SR-specific/
>> Fixed.
>> 
>> 
>>> - Multiple times in description: s/flag bits list/flag list/
>>> - Multiple times in description: s/flags list/flag list/
>> I changed these to either just “bits” or “flags” - the fact that it is a YANG list need not be included in  the description.
>> 
>> 
>>> - 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.
>> Changed them all to “Adj-SID” consistent with RFC8665.
>> 
>>> - 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.
>> I removed “The “ from all the brief descriptions. I left it in two of the TLV description that were written as complete sentences.
>> 
>>> - 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).
>> Fixed both in the module and tree (which was regenerated from tree).
>> 
>> 
>>> - In the container "ti-lfa" (p 25): s/Enables TI-LFA/Enable TI-LFA/ [Not wrong, but should be consistent with others.]
>> Fixed.
>> 
>>> - In the same container (p 26): "s/Topology Independent Loop Free Alternate/Topology-Independent Loop-Free Alternate/
>> Fixed in this place and in another.
>> 
>>> - In section 3 (p 37): s/The YANG modules [...] define/The YANG module [...] defines/
>> Fixed.
>> 
>>> - In the same section: s/in the modules/in the module/
>> Fixed.
>> 
>>> - In the same section: s/Module ietf-ospf-sr/The module ietf-ospf-sr/
>> Fixed.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Julien
>>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 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.