Re: [RTG-DIR] [CCAMP] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Dear Michael, 

Thank you for the review, the authors have updated the document to address your comments and posted the updated document as draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-17.

Updates include:

- Fixed text in section 4.2 fixed
- Added a new clause 5

Again, thanks for the support and review. 

Authors, Haomian and Italo.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: venerdì 17 marzo 2023 20:19
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; last-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [CCAMP] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15
> 
> Reviewer: Michael Richardson
> Review result: Ready
> 
> Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-1 draft-ietf-
> ccamp-otn-topo-yang
> 
> Hello
> 
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of draft-ietf-
> ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16.html and a last-call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-
> layer1-types-1.
> 
> I think that this is because the first document depends upon the second
> document, and the second document is being advanced in order to be ready
> for it to be included on other dochuments.
> 
> The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
> perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to
> the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s
> lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review
> depends on the stage that the document has reached.
> 
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
>     see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>     which should now be somewhere in the new wiki!
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15
> Reviewer: Michael Richardson
> Review Date: 2023-03-17
> Intended Status: standards track
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
> considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> I found the document easy to read and understandable.
> The last GPON stuff I did was in 2010, so I don't really know the details of the
> technology anymore.
> 
> The interspersing of text into the YANG-tree output is an interesting way to
> do things.  I was concerned as I read that this might mean that description in
> the YANG itself might be weak, and I found this to be the case.  I don't have a
> good answer as to whether detailed text in the YANG module is better or
> worse.
> 
> Nits:
> 
> Section 4.2 has some odd formatting for the definition list, which I'm sure
> the RPC will clean up.
> 
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16
> Reviewer: Michael Richardson
> Review Date: 2023-03-17
> Intended Status: standards track
> 
> Summary:
> 
> I found the document rather difficult to read.
> While I had just read layer1-types, and there is a nice Figure 1, then I saw
> section 3, and my eyes blurred.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> I don't think that the YANG Tree display adds anything to the document as is.
> Maybe if it had a softer walk-through like in layer1-types it would be more
> useful.
> 
> I read the YANG, and it's among the most complex I have ever read.
> 
> I didn't know augment took +, and there are too many dependancies for me
> to
> understand trivially what any of this code is doing.   That doesn't mean it's
> wrong, rather than it's unlikely that anyone who is not very very deeply
> steeped in this content will be able to make any determination as to whether
> it's correct.
> 
> Nits:
> 
> None that I saw.
> 
> 
> 
>