[Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and draft-ietf-ospf-yang-17

<stephane.litkowski@orange.com> Wed, 21 November 2018 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB66912958B; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:34:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PMQozg4-s8hF; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:34:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D618C12F1A2; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:34:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 430JpP1MLSz5wCQ; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:34:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.42]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 430JpP02d8zyQD; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:34:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM41.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::c845:f762:8997:ec86%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:34:04 +0100
From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
To: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and draft-ietf-ospf-yang-17
Thread-Index: AdSBhYgiLVXk+bRuTn68pWj1+aWyiQ==
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:34:04 +0000
Message-ID: <576_1542796445_5BF5349D_576_261_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B7731BE@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B7731BEOPEXCLILMA4corp_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/DbT82FZiC3vnlBScsMiCYnI55RA>
Subject: [Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and draft-ietf-ospf-yang-17
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:34:10 -0000


Here are some comments I have on the model:

·         The model should use the LSR WG as point of contact and no more the OSPF WG

·         In the feature multi-topology: s/-Topolgy/-Topology

·         In the packet-type typedef: s/database-descripton/database-description.

·         In the container lsa-log description: s/conatiner/container

·         OSPF model has no keychain feature, while ISIS has one. We need to agree on a common way to go.

·         In the container link-tlvs, the link-type is an uint8 , wouldn't it be better to use an enum to get a description of what is the link type ?

·         Need to expand "af" to "address-family" everywhere in the model (comments received from Yang doctor in the ISIS model review => ISIS has done this expansion).

·         Ietf-spf-delay timers use uint16 while ISIS uses timer-value-milliseconds

·         The grouping instance-config has a "uses instance-fast-reroute-state". It would be better to put it in the instance-state container.

·         The model uses the "ospf-protocol" identity while IS-IS uses just "isis". We need to find a common way to define the protocol identity name. RIP yang model uses just "rip", so I suppose OSPF has to align.

·         In the feature "fast-reroute" reference: s/Rereoute/Reroute/

·         The description of the identity "ospf-lsa-type" is strange: "Base identity for OSPFv3 and OSPFv3 Link State Advertisements". Do you mean just : "Base identity for OSPFv3 Link State Advertisements"

·         It seems that you are using a typedef uint24 for the metric. In IS-IS there is  a metric typedef for this purpose.

·          In the if-state-type, the value 6 is referred as "bdr" while the RFC talks about "backup". "bdr" works for sure, we just need to agree if we align on RFC naming or common usage naming.

·         In the nbr-state-type, why using "ex-start" instead of "exstart", again the RFC does not use the "-".

·         In the packet-type: s/Acknowlegement/Acknowledgement/

·         In the ospfv2-router-link, the type is uint8, would be better to have an enum. Note that this appears multiple times in the model.

·         In the leaf-list attached-router "line 1376", why using dotted-quad instead of ip-address type ?

·         In the grouping area-stat, there are checksum sums that are using int32 type while checksums are using uint32 or some other checksum sums (like in interface-stat) also use uint32. Need to be consistent here.

·         In the grouping interface-physical-link-config, why do you say that it applies to physical interfaces ? Can't you run OSPF on VLANs ?

·         Please set default values as much as you can (for instance in interface-common-config or interface-physical-link-config or interface-config...)

·         Why do you have interface-physical-link-config and interface-config, what difference do you make between the two ? My point is why there is still so much containers/leaves in the interface-config and why couldn't we put them in the other groupings or even create additional ones if required.

·         What is the purpose of some empty groupings that you have created ? like "ospf-config" or "ospf-state"

·         In the multi-topology-area-common-config, you are using a limited uint32 type for the default cost while you have defined a uint24 type that you can use. It appears also in area-common-config.

On the draft:

·         In the overview (§1), reference to 7950 does not appear as a link, maybe an XML issue.

·         §2.2: s/The topology container/The "topologies" container


[Orange logo]<http://www.orange.com/>

Stephane Litkowski
Network Architect
Orange Expert Future Networks
phone: +33 2 23 06 49 83 <https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%202%2023%2028%2049%2083%20>  NEW !
mobile: +33 6 71 63 27 50 <https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%206%2037%2086%2097%2052%20>  NEW !


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.