[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22

Darren Dukes via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 23 January 2024 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D725C14CE5D; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 12:52:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Darren Dukes via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang.all@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.3.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <170604312717.31385.6045546554868012461@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Darren Dukes <ddukes@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 12:52:07 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/IrMzLIzoH9KntUEvwm_yAmpG_IU>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 23 Jan 2024 20:52:07 -0000

Reviewer: Darren Dukes
Review result: Has Nits

I reviewed this draft and appreciate the effort that went into the document.  I
did not find any major issues with this draft and only a few minor issues/nits.


Section 1
- Is the TE model an Abstract TE model (vs underlay or overlay) as per RFC8795?
 If so can you elaborate on that?

Section 2.2
For some VN members of a VN, the customers are allowed to configure the actual
path (i.e., detailed virtual nodes and virtual links) over the VN/abstract
topology agreed mutually between CNC and MDSC prior to or a topology created by
the MDSC as part of VN instantiation. - Please rewrite this sentence, "MDSC
prior to or a topology", I could not parse the intended meaning.

Section 2.2
- Please provide a definition for S1-S11. I believe they're abstract nodes as
defined in an abstract TE model as per RFC8795.


Section 4.3.1
- Is there a reason for the difference in names for path-affinities-values vs
path-affinity-names - could/should you make affinity names consistent? if so
please do.

- Please replace all MSDC with MDSC