[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 > > > >
- [RTG-DIR]Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mp… Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… Yingzhen Qu
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… Acee Lindem
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… Yingzhen Qu
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… Yingzhen Qu
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… Dhruv Dhody
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… Dhruv Dhody
- [RTG-DIR]Re: [Last-Call] Re: Re: Rtgdir last call… mohamed.boucadair
- [RTG-DIR]Re: [Last-Call] Re: Rtgdir last call rev… Acee Lindem
- [RTG-DIR]Re: [Last-Call] Re: Rtgdir last call rev… mohamed.boucadair
- [RTG-DIR]Re: [Ext] [Last-Call] Re: Re: Rtgdir las… Amanda Baber
- [RTG-DIR]Re: [Last-Call] Re: Rtgdir last call rev… Yingzhen Qu
- [RTG-DIR]Re: [Last-Call] Re: Rtgdir last call rev… mohamed.boucadair
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… Mahesh Jethanandani
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… Yingzhen Qu
- [RTG-DIR]Re: [Last-Call] Re: Rtgdir last call rev… Dhruv Dhody