Re: [mpls] mldp was Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang-06

[Jan Lindblad <[e-mail]>]

Tom, 

> It would likely help if you could also look at
> draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-06
> which augments
> draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang-06

Thanks for the pointer. I had a quick scan right now. It appears this module is a little less close to ready than the ldp modules. I will do a proper review if I get a YANG Doctor request to do so. I'm not sure if the draft authors would say it's ready for review today.

> The mldp draft has just completed WGLC.

Really, completed WGLC? The -06 appears to still have a bit of open questions and internal inconsistency. I'm not aware of any YD review since the -03 version.

> Note that the prefixes are ldp: and mldp: so the identities for the
> control plane protocols are probably better as those and not mpls-ldp or
> mpls-mldp.  But is mldp a separate protocol in RFC8349 terms or just
> part of ldp? I do not know.

I don't know either. I agree that some consistency between module prefixes and protocol identities would be nice.

>     augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
>       + "ldp:mpls-ldp/ldp:peers/ldp:peer/ldp:received-peer-state/"
>       + "ldp:capability/mldp:mldp" {
> i.e. there are another 20 or so augment which are affected by the
> changes you propose.

Quite true. I notice that the draft mentions on page 7 an augment path that is consistent with the ietf-routing directives for extending the module, but reverts to the path above on page 10 and beyond.

The only reason I pointed out that the change of augment path was a relatively small job was to support my classification of "ready with issues". I don't think it matters the least if it's a small or big job to fix the modules. Whatever we decide is the right thing to do is what we should do no matter how many augment statements need to be changed or not.

Best Regards,
/jan