Re: [RTG-DIR] [i2rs] Routing directorate QA review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Ines: 

 

Thank you for the excellent review.  We appreciate your hard work. 

 

Sue 

 

From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ines Robles
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 10:17 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Jonathan Hardwick; [e-mail]; Zhangxian (Xian); Susan Hares; Jon Hudson
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Routing directorate QA review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo

 

Hi,

 

QA review related to Data Model for Network Topologies I-D:

 

 

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-02.txt

 

Reviewer: Ines Robles

 

Review Date: May 9, 2016

 

Intended Status: Standards Track

 

 

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

Comments:

 

I believe the draft is technically good. Thinking how it could be extended for constrained topology networks, e.g. RPL build a DODAG (Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph) and I like that the links  are point-to-point and unidirectional, and like "One common requirement concerns the ability to represent that the same device can be part of multiple networks and topologies." a RPL node can participate in several DODAGs and in each one can have different role.

 

 

Major Issues:

 

I have no “Major” issues with this I-D.

 

Minor Issues and Nits:

 

1- Section 1, following Figure 2:

 

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

 1.2- " 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" [Y2] network element mapped onto multiple "Optical" network elements [Z] and [Z1]."

 

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. 

 

 2.2- In terminology you mention ReST, for this I would add the reference for further information. "Fielding, Roy Thomas. "Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures." PhD diss., University of California, Irvine, 2000.". 

ReST is mentioned here but not in the rest of the draft, is it correct?

 

 

3- Section 5: What about add the security considerations mentioned in 6020?

 

 

4- In general: I would mention as related work and the relation with this draft: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-02, draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-01 and draft-contreras-supa-yang-network-topo-03 (this one is expired)

 

 

Thank you,

 

Ines.