Re: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-06: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

And I forgot. Editorial.
No need to reference again the tree-diagram in:

    The LNE model can be represented using the tree format defined in
    [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-06#ref-I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams>] as:


Regards, Benoit
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-06: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No objection to the document, but a few points must addressed.
>
> - I agree with Alvaro's point: the example should be corrected.
> - This draft is NMDA compliant: it should be mentioned.
>
> >From Dan Romascanu's OPS DIR, at least the 3 first three points should be
> addressed (the 4rth one is a nice to have, but a bigger task IMO):
>
> 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. I would suggest that the document actually defines 'A Data Model and
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> .
>