Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 15 February 2018 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D00012D864 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:21:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ugrV_TKAEeBH for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:21:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound-ss-1812.hostmonster.com (gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.25.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 699EE12778E for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:21:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw4 (cmgw5 [10.0.90.85]) by gproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0180F175A43 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:21:42 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id ApMU1x0072SSUrH01pMXG4; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:21:31 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=G85sK5s5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=Op4juWPpsa0A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=ybeS3JukdkMo36A4S_kA:9 a=_3JVBj03phTYy5k_:21 a=SdgoLOEiljIwTgRS:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=+vTMTRqxTdpJhmueWsS92naKW5//eKxavBVDbNmn7Vg=; b=KSG1uhmmrw0uru1Ik213nxxxk1 2z2kXd6mkt+hvF8Z6JIn1kSK4l0TSyv4QfPTHrTtG3YREHfvUDs9lNnOfoY+cEw72rpfK51GfvCQ0 xUduXRYCg9wqqLkQpg49VnVS6;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:41508 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1em8Ep-003H1I-PX; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:21:28 -0700
Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05
To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>, ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
References: <151689883738.8462.18247765120994743319@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <723bfb93-5d0b-3c17-60be-943f36e2a70e@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:21:25 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <151689883738.8462.18247765120994743319@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1em8Ep-003H1I-PX
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:41508
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 5
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/H_yG58XLUhKFbFukrRzkanOIl9Q>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:21:50 -0000

Hi Dan,

     Sorry about the slow response.

On 1/25/2018 11:47 AM, Dan Romascanu wrote:
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> This is a very useful, well thought and well written document, which reflects
> work and discussions within the RTG and OPS areas. From an operational point of
> view it's a very useful tool in support of network operators that will manage
> and configure logical elements. I believe that the document is almost ready,
> but there are a number of issues that are worth being discussed and addressed
> before approval by the IESG.
>
> 1. The name and scope of the document as presented in the title and Abstract
> are not exactly reflecting the content. LNEs are not YANG LNEs as the title
> says, and the type of module (a YANG module) being defined is not stated in the
> Abstract.
This is fixed in -06.

> I would suggest that the document actually defines 'A Data Model and
> YANG Module for Logical Network Elements'.
okay, changed to  'YANG Module for Logical Network Elements'.

> 2. There is no reference and relationship definition in the document to the
> YANG Data Model for Hardware Management defined in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-entity-07. Actually the LNEs are
> almost similar with the 'logical entities' that were dropped from the
> netmod-entity work. It is expected that in the future network operators will
> use both data models and the respective YANG modules when managing hardware
> devices on which logical network entities are being run. Even if this
> relationship is not explicitly present in the DM, I believe that it needs to be
> looked at and mentioned in the document.
okay, it's been added to the example section as a possible model to be 
mounted.

> 3. In Section 2 I see:
>
> 'The logical-network-element module augments existing
>     interface management model by adding an identifier which is used on
>     physical interface types to identify an associated LNE.'
>
> I am wondering why the mentioning of 'physical interface types' here. What if
> the interface type in not 'physical' representing a protocol layer or sublayer
> on the device? After all, if all interfaces to be considered were 'physical' we
> could have augmented the entity hardware module rather than the interfaces
> module, as all physical interfaces are represented there as well.
excellent catch!  it should just say interfaces, it's up to an 
implementation to choose which can be bound to an LNE.

> 4. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 seem to be written for the benefit and the perspective
> of the implementations writers rather than of the operators. Are there any
> hints, advice, or indications for the operators using the module to manage
> their LNEs? These could be described also in the examples appendices, which are
> otherwise very useful to illustrate and explain the models.

I reread these sections as well as the examples and the read to me to be 
almost completely applicable/useful to both client and server - so am at 
a bit of a loss on how best to address this comment. Perhaps I'm just 
too close to the material. Can you provide a specific example of the 
type of improvement you'd like to see?

Thank you for the comments!
Lou


>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>