Re: [Lsr] Robert Wilton's Yes on draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-28: (with COMMENT)

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,

> On Feb 1, 2024, at 9:11 AM, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-28: Yes
> 
> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for publishing another YANG model.
> 
> I do have a little sympathy to Roman's comment that having a bit more
> descriptive prose at the beginning of this document might be helpful to readers
> (i.e., I'm thinking in the order of one or two paragraphs).  But at the same
> time, I can also see that repeating (or perhaps summarising) what is already
> written in another RFC isn't necessarily that helpful, and having the details
> in the YANG module itself is arguably the most important and useful place
> because then the tooling can build appropriate GUI help text or user
> documentation.

I honestly don’t know what I’d add. While sometimes the abstract/introduction of documents do
not adequately articulate the document purpose and scope, the succinct text below is clear (at least to me):


      This document defines a YANG data model augmenting the IETF OSPF
      YANG model to provide support for OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) Extensibility
      as defined in RFC 8362. OSPFv3 Extended LSAs provide extensible TLV-based LSAs for the
      base LSA types defined in RFC 5340.

What is missing here?

One area of confusion that it would be good for you to get the message out, is that operational state  is
typically validated prior to being returned and the data is typically not validated by the YANG infra-structure
(al though types must still match). As you know, this is being addressed in RFC 8407BIS. 


Thanks,
Acee


> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> 
>