[RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-07

Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 05 June 2024 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.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 A798FC14F6EE; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 VeDTXnve7JLH; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 A409DC151077; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2e95a1eff78so83701151fa.0; Tue, 04 Jun 2024 22:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1717566772; x=1718171572; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RiWAiSYhwvDjdA+E8oKxgxh+9tw2pZPGhtqjDDg1xPI=; b=EKitHYCzuIpff+yLxx++2YSy/4YV01QmxRWLCqfP1+44sNAZKH+AyTK+8mgoYgQP4q JTTogatcYgLV3FjyWYgbU+j2EgMI6GYthCELjYt+u9VGtS4PKf8/8apgjV7TvT8yMwtR fEOnLtfCQn0NxZ9ODaAfhWfS1G9q8bx1lTLiLx6uZe+y1OwoyFsFUMcaSqctMCrXSMMr CVOm8nJMx/JIMA2DvGfuxd6IflhSiTbfmplDwJU9u9IFdDspKWCSR8/Rk+H9Xix+iJtK BrZ+Di+QGU4SlsRE2mSkwBFV8ylkMNkVrIAb3PXtYj1Xq+bHbgT+1XS5jDTN77gQD++H mlYQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1717566772; x=1718171572; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=RiWAiSYhwvDjdA+E8oKxgxh+9tw2pZPGhtqjDDg1xPI=; b=n3i7CtiQTaYabRCu6jRtV28nxHk6a0dPX2vMUm3ZdQ3hbno9rJRU9tB9UKPWxGr8UL qHMCxRhP5FPY3beZ2NknysML7Y74S5mr2DpMafIBp1gul1ctLG2CLti0Mbbj7/g54no5 qz4ZR+D9FOPhkpxbVNfvEBcqczy12yXeOs0wa5OZ6YQ1g4fg61+tCpga8Qtr2KmEIgif SVUF6uodnSNtbl71L/pTdThLvnOdD72LI2+HXUd1u9jtBGZXCLH+Pd0HCHeCeS5UOuQj mz24sgAARFwm6bU2RGahY/bD9EpuwQzCRWqwuckRDgcq88RkO9lxzYF6KTH7qiuQst0/ Iauw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXZsqeYcRAWiHfrjawE/J/9l/eK5nYiBNjHs/8rtmq1a2zD0Fr5JdxjT1vLryok5DHaGkRjwjEXBCnrK0Pk+W+/adLXdxO3NUJh2XZtoJXYAi8uHKuSs/eSXbY70xvMhvEIKmWgfU6WSn+Da3bKnY0JsDmBOaWauEI=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxEDDJrPSqvn9aBeS5mQ04DGSjxlPH4qf4HHPTH+6BXSmvl9qM5 YHX1eqc2KBf3k+7xTerEurt4lk9gRIqA2q4fNWyHTV6wcU5qHT54CH0B4T3NWu3gksk+KgupW5E j5bB84smv/HDNzRe602P0J8wXa01vdFE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGxf5ABCAQ4bPIoyjKW99mTxRHTuhJpu2P3IZ9PUHRnb67uSwIMfJsyPtkdoSGS676OWkXYuylIp1xhpkErXWs=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:bb8f:0:b0:2dd:3803:e1da with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2eac79e8df2mr7593011fa.12.1717566771378; Tue, 04 Jun 2024 22:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <171743797081.42914.4518891340142384843@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <171743797081.42914.4518891340142384843@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 22:52:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABY-gOMdwJRExQ0mP-gH4QaW_=3m8SbQB__wgWpe0E-1XGVVHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000049407b061a1e2d17"
Message-ID-Hash: 23RB7UT4HTSK5RGWNO32LU7AZG2KU2WP
X-Message-ID-Hash: 23RB7UT4HTSK5RGWNO32LU7AZG2KU2WP
X-MailFrom: yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtg-dir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-07
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/NJlcPwOgNXmDknYT9-2AiqRqARg>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtg-dir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Dhruv,

Thanks for the review and comments. I've uploaded version -08 to address
your comments. Please see my detailed answers below.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 11:06 AM Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> 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 the IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on
> special
> request. The purpose of the review is to assist the Routing ADs. For more
> information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-mpls-msd-yang-07
> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review Date: 2024-06-03
> IETF LC End Date: 2024-06-04
> Intended Status: Proposed Standard
>
> ## Summary:
>
> * I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
> resolved before publication.
>
> ## Comment:
>
> * This draft defines 2 YANG models one is IANA-maintained to mirror the
> msd-type registry and the other is augmenting base MPLS to include MSD
> values.
>
> ### Major Issues:
>
> - Please remove the BCP14 boilerplate (Section 1.1) as you are not using
> any of
> those keywords. Also, remove from the ietf-mpls-msd YANG model.
>
[Yingzhen]: removed.

>
> - You should explicitly state that this is an initial version of
> "iana-msd-types" YANG model - "This document defines the initial version
> of the
> IANA-maintained 'iana-msd-types' YANG module."
>
> [Yingzhen]: fixed.


> ### Minor Issues:
>
> - Title: Please change to "A YANG Data Model for MPLS Maximum Segment
> Identifier (SID) Depth (MSD)". Also, update the reference in the YANG model
> around RFC XXXX.
>
> [Yingzhen]: changed the title to "YANG Data Model for MPLS Maximum Segment
Identifier (SID) Depth (MSD)" .

- The abstract suggests that only one YANG model is defined in this I-D.
> Consider rephrasing or adding some hints about the IANA model as well.
>
> [Yingzhen]: updated.


> - Section 1, "YANG [RFC7950] is a data definition language.."; I suggest
> changing it to data modeling as that is the term used in the referenced
> RFC.
>
> [Yingzhen]: modified.


> - Section 1, I am unsure about the text "The augmentation defined in this
> document requires support..."; isn't it obvious that one needs to support
> the
> model one is augmenting...
>
> [Yingzhen]: removed this sentence.


> - Section 4, please add this text in the description inside the YANG
> module -
> "This YANG module is maintained by IANA and reflects the 'IGP MSD-Types'
> registry."
>
> [Yingzhen]: Done.


> - identity msd-erld, should also have a reference to RFC9088.
>
> [Yingzhen]: Done.


> - In "ietf-mpls-msd", please remove the reference "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data
> Model
> for MPLS MSD." immediately after the module description. The revision
> statement
> is the correct place to have this reference.
>
> [Yingzhen]: removed.


> - leaf msd-value should also include text for "0 represents the lack of
> ability
> to support a SID stack of any depth".
>

[Yingzhen]: Added.

>
> - I can not parse "A type of Node MSD is the smallest same type link MSD
> supported by the node.";"
>

[Yingzhen]: tried to rephrase.  Hope it reads better now.

>
> - RFC8340 should be normatively referenced.
>
> [Yingzhen]: RFC8340 has been an informational reference in YANG RFCs.

### Nits:
>
> - s/(MSD) Types as the IANA the IGP MSD-Types registry/(MSD) Types as per
> the
> IANA IGP MSD-Types registry/
>
> - s/which itself augments [RFC8349]/which itself augments routing RIB data
> model [RFC8349]/
>
> - s/IANA maintained module/IANA-maintained module/
>
> - s/This module will be maintained by IANA if more MSD types are added to
> the
> registry./This module will be maintained by IANA and updated if and when
> there
> is any change in the registry./
>
> - s/and it is to provide support of different types of MSDs in MPLS data
> plane./and it provides support for different types of MSDs in the MPLS data
> plane./
>
> - s/read-only data decided by/read-only data as per/
>
> - Section 4, expand SID on first use in the YANG model.
>
> [Yingzhen]: nits all fixed.


> Thanks,
> Dhruv
>
>
>
>