[mpls] Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the review and comments. I've uploaded version -11 to address
your comments. Please see the details below.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 7:57 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-10: Discuss
>
> 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-mpls-msd-yang/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-10
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
>
> Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
> non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only
> for
> my own education).
>
> Special thanks to Tarek Saad for the shepherd's detailed write-up
> including the
> WG consensus *BUT* it lacks the justification of the intended status.
>
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> # DISCUSS (blocking)
>
> As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
> DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:
>
> ## SRH content while the title is about MPLS
>
> While not really a DISCUSS criteria, the title is only about MPLS while
> some
> identities are about SRH, i.e., SR over an IPv6 dataplane => please remove
> MPLS
> from the title or add SRH/SRv6 to the title.
>
> I understand the catch 22 situation here but having 2 I-D would have been
> cleaner, so, at least adapt the title and the abstract to mention SRH as
> well.
> I also intend to clear this DISCUSS during the IESG telechat if the title
> is
> not changed before.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> # COMMENTS (non-blocking)
>
> ## Title
>
> Suggest to remove all acronyms in the title as they are only adding
> confusion.
>
> [Yingzhen]: changed the title to "YANG Data Model for Maximum SID Depth
Types and MPLS Maximum SID Depth" .

## Section 1
>
> Even if "SID" is a well-known acronym per RFC editor, suggest to expand
> SID at
> first use.
>
> [Yingzhen]: fixed.


> ## Section 2.2
>
> Unsure what is a "link on a node" ? Should it rather be "link attached to
> an
> interface of a node" ?
>
> [Yingzhen]: I wrote the sentence. Hope it's clear now.


> ## Section 4.1
>
> Identities sometimes end with "srh" (e.g., "msd-base-srh") or start with
> "srh"
> (e.g., "srh-max-end-pop"), suggest to be consistent and use "srh" always
> at the
> beginning or at the end of the identities.
>
Avoid the nits issue by a leading text in this section mentioning RFC 9352
> and
> 9088.
>
> ## Section 4.2
>
> In `The MSD type is defined in IANA IGP MSD-Types registry.`, should it
> rather
> be the YANG module of section 4.1 ?
>

[Yingzhen]: The IANA module reflects the IGP MSD-Types registry.


> ## Section 5
>
> Suggest using the order of section 4.1 then section 4.2 for the listed
> security
> considerations.
>
> [Yingzhen]: The iana-msd-types.yang only includes identities from a
public IANA registry, and has no security risk.

## Normative references
>
> Should the IANA registry for "IGP MSD-types" include the URI fragment ?
> I.e.,
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types
>
> [Yingzhen]: changed.


> Please remove RFC 2119 and 8174 as BCP 14 template is not used in this
> document.
>
> [Yingzhen]: removed.