Re: [RTG-DIR] [i2rs] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14

"Susan Hares" <> Tue, 25 July 2017 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19CD6131E6B; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RfYOiyCKZliy; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E7C6131E68; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: "'Ines Robles'" <>, <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:24:08 -0400
Message-ID: <01b701d3056a$d381fca0$7a85f5e0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIJ6YKanmEFADbnMl9M4liTZ2TQpaH3Alyw
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [i2rs] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:30:17 -0000


Getting this review on the Monday after IETF shows what a diligent reviewer you are.  The authors will be responding shortly. 

Sue Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [] On Behalf Of Ines Robles
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 7:14 PM
Subject: [i2rs] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14

Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Has Issues


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 ​

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-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14.txt
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 07-25-2017
Intended status: Standards Track

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.


I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and clear to understand. The figures are clear and helpful.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

Since this document specifies a data model, I would include some text related to the Information Model [RFC 3444]. How would it be in this context?

1- Section 1

  1.a following Figure 1 (Page 4):

    I would add in the figure the corresponding section that explain the
    module. e.g. Abstract Network Model, I would add in the figure "Abstract
    (base) Network Model" and "section 4.1". The same for "Abstract Topology
    Model", should it be section 4.2?

  1.b -following Figure 2 (Page 5):

      1.b.1- " X1 and X2 - mapping onto... ",  I think it would be "X1 and X3
      mapping onto..."

      1.b.2- " a single L3 network element", I would add in this case (Y2) "a
      single L3 (Y2) network element", the same for "The figure shows a single
      "L3" network element mapped onto multiple "Optical" network elements.", I
      would add "The figure shows a single "L3" network element (Y2) mapped
      onto multiple "Optical" network elements [Z] and [Z1]."

      1.b.3- I would expand ROADMs --> Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop
      Multiplexers (ROADMs)

2- Section 2:

  2.1- I would add a reference to RFC 6020, since the document uses terminology
  e.g container, augment, etc. which are defined in 6020. Even if this RFC is
  mentioned in the normative reference, still I would add it here as well.

3- Section 3:

  3.1-  ReST is mentioned here but not in the rest of the draft, is this


1- Pag. 18: is that correct?: "(a string is a string is a string)"

2- pag. 34: I would expand NMS -> NMS (Network Management System)

3- pag. 34: I would add a definition about TE Topology : "TE-Topology: The TE Topology is a schematic arrangement of TE nodes
   and TE links in a given TED. It forms the basis for a graph suitable
   for TE path computations."

4- pag. 34: topoogical -> topological

5- pag 35: "uber-network device" -> over-network device?



i2rs mailing list