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

Ines Robles <> Mon, 09 May 2016 02:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A53A12D197; Sun, 8 May 2016 19:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id buGQZOsummpf; Sun, 8 May 2016 19:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33EC212D18D; Sun, 8 May 2016 19:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f66so50171681vkh.2; Sun, 08 May 2016 19:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=kJwUVmztqHgDad3+5ENFC9e4+3UHElC3yqkwbDXnbTQ=; b=xWrhDsxYF11lCCjeY8S8+CLvjHmnFy7vs4eiDX948kh1+Qm58dUcuDzXbUXLXFdPTe cfFZGmuCt3nzAHjTdc95l9M7VqqOgbVCuHYn+KXbD3j8E1gpPLmxBEcggorZaSAKLByt t6nL8TfHvGrxxJL3ma+Xaov1BC50w7OsV0f8arfjkIQIhHsP+ZtTNdY3hUt6ra8jj0vd hJ/D8LJ36fh3V+Xch4LSCBQ5yHvR60KtMEDhn7Cr+ePj8zNhEWPWWSuWn/eZoiis0tt2 sqQrZiZhiXyjLzO5hd8wcD6ovIiEXX/yj8FIgWWg20eieVIx7nreTopNtFGzvRbivk3+ 6Z8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=kJwUVmztqHgDad3+5ENFC9e4+3UHElC3yqkwbDXnbTQ=; b=HMvSvSTgue78CX6RPLZdN/TIupJkGdfWfNUTX7v550XL907chiqzZvNIqErk0CxxYT dZbbeS8j+vnk2l/4CRZtWS9ZnPd9iwnZyRdnaT8XRhCHEw6V21zDpbCP/og5cvYAgZCN 1C6akv/LyXMtWZfX2r2LD+5o2rXnZJCf2ENSe1CdGJBjU6H3QDQuc+v5UFo7vqw3PMt+ M3nh8bATfBbUlzvTqbRZvzgDXX7Bibh2HzcRL6po3LmLPYXn7wTflCdewKwMEd4ibVL4 +JtmBTciAo7jk0qSKPTnx5xA61N/34gZ+JjhlRCwNR4YAMS8uEOocP+33wIv7Dwgd1gh Tj4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW3Dd/oOsPxhNQ/Nsig2yqLFDvqzAsY2bAm56RkgWITnuT/AhEynUi7dv0hsiJZyOYSpBG7hTFbCH9v+w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id q73mr18922343uaq.71.1462760229149; Sun, 08 May 2016 19:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 8 May 2016 19:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 05:17:09 +0300
Message-ID: <>
From: Ines Robles <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c03fa6ad9a34805325f670a
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Jonathan Hardwick <>, "" <>, "Zhangxian \(Xian\)" <>, Susan Hares <>, Jon Hudson <>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate QA review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 02:17:15 -0000


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


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


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,