[RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 19 July 2017 08:45 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F09131C32; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 01:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pUG3AZ3GA69u; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 01:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F796131C2F; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 01:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:1998:a11:96ff:fe01:81e0]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2E111F8F6; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:45:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id AF3F52934; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:45:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: l2rs-wg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology@ietf.org
cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, l2rs@ietf.org
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:45:03 +0200
Message-ID: <10278.1500453903@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/7RZuuJKjXNj2hI-F7EvckectemU>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:45:19 -0000
Hello I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-10 The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. I believe that this is case 3, the document is neither recently adopted nor is it in WGLC. The request is for a sanity check. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology Reviewer: Michael Richardson Review Date: 2017-07-18 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before it is submitted to the IESG. Comments: I found the document clear and well written. You told me at the beginning that: For this purpose, example models are introduced that cover IS-IS [RFC1195] and OSPF [RFC2328]. Yet I still felt sad when I got to spot where it said: Accordingly, the module is not delimited with CODE BEGINS and CODE ENDS I think that the point of the OSPF and ISIS examples was to show, via a kind of running-code of YANG, that the specification was complete enough that it could be used. Maybe this could be clarified better, the examples occupy a large portion of the document. I'm not sure so much of the document should be devoted to non-normative examples. I don't think I agree with ommitting the CODE BEGINS, because someone reading this might well want to run the examples through their yang validator. It was nice to have the mini-tutorial on YANG, but I don't think it needed to be repeated. I found parts of the YANG to be silly, such as: leaf-list flag { type node-flag-type; description "Node flags"; } Does YANG require that actually have to have a description? It is meaningless as above. What are node flags? I suggest that the description should be far more useful. Consider someone seeing the data decoded into a database, but has this description. Another example of useless descriptions: case asbr { leaf asbr { type empty; description "The node is ASBR"; } okay, fair enough, it is an example, so don't work too hard here. As examples, I thought that maybe I'd see this module instantiated into JSON or XML and to see an example of a data set that describes a real-life router's interfaces. I did not see such a thing. Perhaps there are feelings about whether or not a YANG model should include concrete code or not, I'm not sure. I didn't understand why: Appendix A. Companion YANG model for non-NMDA compliant implementations was included. Probably I don't know enough about NMDA. Nits: I found no trivial nits. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-i2rs-ya… Michael Richardson
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-i2r… Susan Hares
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-i2r… Michael Richardson
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-i2r… Susan Hares
- [RTG-DIR] Subject: [www.ietf.org/rt #176329] Auto… Michael Richardson
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Subject: [www.ietf.org/rt #176329] … Susan Hares
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-i2r… Susan Hares