[RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-16
julien.meuric@orange.com Tue, 13 September 2022 14:02 UTC
Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
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 D8639C14CF1D; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.81
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.81 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GyU6itxOiSpp; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8905C14CE33; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.64]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfednr21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4MRlXn75cFz5yYV; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:02:49 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1663077770; bh=pW7VNz6pj1hMeKZuTu5c/q6TEIqkVLR0L3+kZKvOl0Y=; h=From:Subject:To:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=g8CqBvLDlKwVU1/TzSl88vnWfT/8JpUSbPayL2dQmMRqhAIadPrHRuEkoB4VgMdpX B2c1fOaRwpvzWlXFR/HQUfR/ORcC+5upaeaDs46sfTIBgkdTk1ViOXoAMYtyq9cmtT IIpBf4MWv5v/YqWSdSNn3E5uOxPWbNq+CXFcHW0AXdo3IqNtIbPDagJqMhOU/UAOEF Xe1IaUhDCsq+rDNB8nD1twQ5OPCgurPEhLUIver/ztNH2VllzFGdDtVi6sGC/7qHe4 KVYWqVi0lqrq9QFSpNIovQyF+LCghTFb3mxqLo/xZfcWeTc+dt05WjYIhWEwefRh1j 14F9CEMqsybqw==
From: julien.meuric@orange.com
Organization: Orange
To: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-detnet-yang.all@ietf.org
CC: rtg-dir@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org
Message-ID: <f8842b8f-bbb5-cf31-90de-24fa061bc3f9@orange.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:02:47 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms090709090409080009020502"
X-Originating-IP: [10.115.26.50]
X-ClientProxiedBy: OPE16NORMBX507.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup (10.115.27.27) To OPE16NORMBX407.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup (10.115.27.16)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/7tui4YOcz03pFDe0JbrcR2_WhUw>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-16
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:02:58 -0000
Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-detnet-yang Reviewer: Julien Meuric Review Date: 2022-09-13 Intended Status: Standards Track _Summary_ I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. _Comments_ The YANG module itself seems almost ready but the text that introduces it needs a few clarification or rewording. _Minor Issues_ - First of all, IdNits points out 3 normative references on informational RFCs 8938, 9016 and 9055. Are you sure the 3 of them are mandatory to implement the YANG module? - In the abstract, I don't really understand the point of the sentence "An operator or network controller programs the configuration of the devices" since service provisioning on devices along the path is previously mentioned. If the intent was to say: "The configuration of the devices can be programmed by an operator or a network controller.", that feels like stating the obvious for a device-embeded YANG module. - In section 4, the wording of "ingress" and "egress" definitions feel odd. Is it meant to say "Ingress refers to entering the DetNet application layer and egress to leaving the application layer."? - The described aggregation cases are scoped either as layer N to layer N or as layer N to layer N-1. However, there's a relay node case where aggregation is described as layer N (forwarding) to layer N+1 (service). Since there's no forwarding to forwarding relay case, I suspect a mismatch... [Later note: in the model itself, one can find "forwarding-to-forwarding aggregation at the ingress node or relay node or transit node", so it looks like an issue in the text part.] - In section 8, the max-loss leaf is an uint32 but is defined as a "ratio". Considering the value in the examples (2), it seems that the description text (and units?) should be adjusted. _Nits_ ------ Abstract --- s/operational data for DetNet Flows/operational data of DetNet Flows/ [already 2 "for"s in the phrase] ------ Section 4. --- OLD Node types typically are logical per DetNet service and one DetNet service can be one node type while another is another node type on same device. NEW Node types are logical roles per DetNet service: a device along one DetNet service can be of one node type, while another service may use the same device with a different node type. s/edge node(egress/edge node (egress/ s/These may used/These may be used/ s/the configuration need to/the configuration needs to/ s/IP based path/IP-based path/ s/parameters for aggregated flow/parameters for aggregated flow/ ------ Section 10. --- OLD o this also coudl be considered moer sensitive. The trafic profiles liked to NEW so this also could be considered more sensitive. The traffic profiles linked to ------ Regards, Julien