Re: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Thu, 31 January 2019 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2CC130EE5; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:21:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_DYNAMIC=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 DAKlMHzDoE9i; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:21:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (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 9C924130EDA; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:21:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x0VKGdr1008761; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:21:42 -0500
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qc7af95t5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:21:42 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x0VKLeDB010843; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:21:41 -0500
Received: from zlp27126.vci.att.com (zlp27126.vci.att.com [135.66.87.47]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x0VKLbd6010822; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:21:38 -0500
Received: from zlp27126.vci.att.com (zlp27126.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27126.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id E28914030723; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:21:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.145]) by zlp27126.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id C9894403070C; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:21:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.226]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.145]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:21:37 -0500
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com>, tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03
Thread-Index: AQHUuW7Jd61NwjZa/02320V/PAwTi6XJxDNw
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:21:36 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C89D0FC1A8@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <154090780735.15255.3911131220920609603@ietfa.amsl.com> <973699DE-882E-4531-A7D5-32AFEF4359E7@cisco.com> <6CC3CA10-0768-4C99-9237-30A78E1EC3DA@tail-f.com> <BB36593B-0A4E-4F88-A088-3C35BBCAB902@cisco.com> <39E705F8-EE93-4F16-AD3A-39B2E6FCC37E@tail-f.com> <00bc01d4b33e$c42e4d20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <B9068E7A-9D15-4F77-A9BF-3B25092DC1CC@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B9068E7A-9D15-4F77-A9BF-3B25092DC1CC@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.16.234.244]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-01-31_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901310149
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/2_n-xswhf8LPNUXKYB2ITe_JFb0>
Subject: Re: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:21:48 -0000

Hi,

Thanks Tom for your careful review!

Tarek, I reviewed how you distributed the references between normative and informative. The definition is in RFC7322:
" where normative references are essential to implementing
   or understanding the content of the RFC and informative references
   provide additional information."
And the IESG statement:
https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/
"normative..documents that must be read to understand or implement"

I am wondering on this huge list of normative references. Is the reader required to read all of these before understanding/implementing this document? Especially the ITU-T references, do they need to be in the normative section? A quick scan of the document, most are used as a reference for a term/definition.  Especially G.808, which is on terms and definitions, is listed as normative. But when listed, G.808 is paired with RFC4427. And RFC4427 is listed as informative (which I would say is correct). I would say only RFC4427 is needed (as informative) as it references G.808. I see many with multiple references (even more than 2) listed. As Tom says, references are good, but there's no contest here, e.g. the more references listed, proof of the model😊 And listing a definition in the YANG model as normative reference will not guarantee a node implements the definition. Please review these again, I think many can be informative.

Thanks,
Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Tarek Saad (tsaad) <tsaad@cisco.com>; 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:11 AM
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>;; Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com>;
Cc: yang-doctors@ietf.org; draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03

Hi Tom,

Thank again for your review comments below. We've uploaded version 04/-05 which attempts to address these comments. 
See inline [TS] for resolution.

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>;
Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 12:13 PM
To: Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com>;, Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com>;
Cc: "yang-doctors@ietf.org"; <yang-doctors@ietf.org>;, "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@ietf.org>;, "ietf@ietf.org"; <ietf@ietf.org>;, "teas@ietf.org"; <teas@ietf.org>;
Subject: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03

    Tarek
    
    The YANG modules have lots of references - good - but they are not in
    the I-D references - not good.
    
    My list is
    
    3272
    4202
    4328
    4657
    5817
    6004
    6205
    6511
    7139
    7308
    7551
    7571
    7579
    7951
    G.808
    G.8031
    G.8131
    G.873.1

[TS]: thanks. I've added the missing references and they should show in the I-D references now.
    
    s.3.1 I would find more usable if the types were in an order I could
    recognise, such as alphabetical

[TS]: OK, I tried an attempt to sort the typedefs alphabetically.
    
      import ietf-routing-types { prefix "rt-types";
    reference "RFC6991: Common YANG Data Types";
    perhaps RFC8294 is intended

[TS]: corrected to RFC8294

    "   defined in ietf-network.yang, to help user to understand ""
    might benefit from a reference - is this
    draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo?

[TS]: added reference RFC8345.
    
    /"Then index of the label/ "The index of the label /

[TS]: fixed typo.    

              container tiebreakers {
                description
                  "The list of tiebreaker criterion to apply
                   on an equally favored set of paths to pick best";
                list tiebreaker {
                  description
                  "The list of tiebreaker criterion to apply
                     on an equally favored set of paths to pick best";
    One description is perhaps enough

[TS]: removed/updated redundant description.
    
    uses path-objective-function_config;
    using _ is not wrong but is discouraged, mixing _ with - in a label more
    so

[TS]: OK, we have moved away from using "_" in the naming.
    
    /This document registers a YANG module/
    This document registers two YANG modules/

[TS]: fixed typo.
    
       name: ietf-te-types namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-
       types prefix: ietf-te-types reference: RFC3209
       name: ietf-te-packet-types namespace:
       urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types prefix: ietf-te-
       packet-types reference: RFC3209
    
    Perhaps /3209/XXXX/

[TS]: fixed.
    
Regards,
Tarek

    Tom Petch
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jan Lindblad" <janl@tail-f.com>;
    To: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com>;
    Cc: <yang-doctors@ietf.org>;;
    <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@ietf.org>;; <ietf@ietf.org>;;
    <teas@ietf.org>;
    Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:10 AM
    Subject: Re: [Teas] Yangdoctors early review of
    draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03 (was -01)
    
    
    >