Re: [Teas] some shepherd comments on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou,

Thanks for reviewing the draft and providing the valuable comments. Authors are working on a draft update and should post it soon.

Regards,
- Xufeng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 6:41 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: some shepherd comments on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo
> 
> Authors,
> 
> Great (and important) work! I think the early sections are very informative and
> readable.
> 
> My one substantive comment is that I think it would be helpful to future model
> developers to provide an overview of how you see this work will be extended to
> support technology specific extensions, e.g., new control technologies,
> new/tech link config parameters/statistics, technology specific (or not)
> switching constraints, etc.    I don' want this to delay the work, but I also don't
> want to find out in 6 months that the model isn't sufficiently extendable. What
> do you think?
> 
> ** Editorial comments:
> 
> - TE should be spelled out in the title and first use in the abstract and
> introduction
> 
> - This should be moved to section 1.1:
> 
>   Conventions used in this document
> 
>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
> this
>    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
> 
> - reverences to 6020 should be replaced 7950
> 
> - Section 1.1
>   It's unclear to me how you selected this particular terms and I suspect we're
> going to see many comments on the need to expand this list.  Perhaps just state
> that reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and concepts in TE
> rfcs, e.g., perhaps just add something like:
> 
>    The reader is assumed to be familiar with general body of work captured in
>     currently available TE related RFCs.  RFC7926 serves as a good starting point
>     for those who may be less familiar with Traffic Engineering related RFCs.
> 
> - It would be good to add references the first time you refer to a well-known
> concept, e.g., Multi-layer TE [RFC5512], SRLGs, ODUk, etc..
> 
> - Section 1.2 should be replaced by a reference to draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-
> diagrams
> 
> - s/decorate/annotate and s/decorating/annotating
> 
> - I'm not sure how useful the 30 odd pages of tree diagrams in section 6 are in
> this document.  Perhaps move to an appendix?  I'm really not sure...
> 
> - Please replace the reference to   draft-clemm-netconf-yang-push with draft-
> ietf-netconf-yang-push
> 
> - please make [YANG-SCHEDULE] and informative reference
> 
> That's it,
> Lou