Re: [Teas] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-10

Hi Reshad,

Base RSVP RFC2205 defines the session as. "An RSVP session is defined by the triple: (DestAddress, ProtocolId      [, DstPort])." RFC3209 defines a session object for RSVP-TE LSP(s) as tuple (tunnel endpoint, tunnel ID, extended tunnel ID). Since keys are mandatory leafs for lists, and to make it generic, we thought of a having an independent index key for the list.

Thinking more of it now, since the list is state/read-only, the key is optional and omitting it may be better. We can consider this in the next update to the document, thanks for pointing it out.

Regards,

Tarek

On 5/13/19, 2:09 PM, "Teas on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <teas-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of rrahman@cisco.com> wrote:

    Hi,

    Question to the authors (I haven't followed this draft so apologies if I'm trying to revive a dead horse): why is there an artificial index (leaf local-index) for the sessions list, why not uniquely identify the session with destination address etc? Is it because there are different types of sessions?

    Regards,

    Reshad.

    On 2019-05-03, 8:11 PM, "yang-doctors on behalf of Ebben Aries via Datatracker" <yang-doctors-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

        Reviewer: Ebben Aries

        Review result: On the Right Track

        2 modules in this draft:

        - ietf-rsvp@2019-02-18.yang

        - ietf-rsvp-extended@2019-02-18.yang

        No YANG compiler errors or warnings (pyang 2.0, yanglint 1.1.16, confdc 6.6.1)

        Module ietf-rsvp@2019-02-18.yang:

        - Remove WG Chairs from contact information per

          https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#appendix-B

        - Use of 'state' containers.  It is stated in Section 2.3 that 'Derived state

          data is contained under a "state" container...'.  My only comments here are:

          a) Should use caution when using 'state' containers in NMDA compliant

          modules.  Rob put together a nice doc here that I won't reiterate:

          https://github.com/netmod-wg/FAQ/wiki/NMDA-Modelling-FAQ

          Using such nomenclature locks you into r/o nodes only.

          b) In some cases, the hierarchy is a bit redundant (statistics/state).

          Other NMDA compliant modules will not introduce another 'state' hierarchy

          for instance (see ietf-interfaces)

        - leaf 'packet-len' is abbreviated while most other leafs are not

        - authentication-key is of type string.  Is this leaf mean to be clear-text?

          There is nothing associated with this type that would imply special

          treatment in handling.

        - crypto-algorithm: Are all identities from ietf-key-chain supported?

        - Pluralization on counters:  e.g. 'in-error' vs. 'in-errors'. Maintain

          consistency with other modules (see ietf-interfaces)

        - Normative references are missing for some of the modules imported.  These

          must be added per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.9

        Module ietf-rsvp-extended@2019-02-18.yang:

        - Remove WG Chairs from contact information per

          https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#appendix-B

        - Use of 'state' containers.  It is stated in Section 2.3 that 'Derived state

          data is contained under a "state" container...'.  My only comments here are:

          a) Should use caution when using 'state' containers in NMDA compliant

          modules.  Rob put together a nice doc here that I won't reiterate:

          https://github.com/netmod-wg/FAQ/wiki/NMDA-Modelling-FAQ

          Using such nomenclature locks you into r/o nodes only.

          b) In some cases, the hierarchy is a bit redundant (statistics/state).

          Other NMDA compliant modules will not introduce another 'state' hierarchy

          for instance (see ietf-interfaces)

        - Pluralization on counters:  e.g. 'in-error' vs. 'in-errors'. Maintain

          consistency with other modules (see ietf-interfaces)

        - 9 features are defined with no 'if-feature' statements.  Where are these

          feature conditions meant to be used?

        - Normative references are missing for some of the modules imported.  These

          must be added per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.9

        General comments on the draft/modules:

        - The state container and list key designs appear very familiar to that of

          OpenConfig modules however not consistent with IETF module design.

          Consistency is key from each producing entity (e.g. IETF in this case)

        - The draft mentions RPCs and Notifications however none are defined within

          the modules

        - Section 2.3: Has examples of RPCs and Notifications that are non-existant in

          the modules

        - Abstract: s/RVSP/RSVP/

        - Abstract: s/remote procedural/remote procedure/

        - Section 2: s/extensiion/extension/

        - Section 4: Update the security considerations section to adhere to

          https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.7 and

          https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines

        - Various (missing) wording/pluralization cleanup throughout that I'll defer

          to the RFC Editor.  A once over proofread should solve this.

        _______________________________________________

        yang-doctors mailing list

        yang-doctors@ietf.org

        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors

    _______________________________________________

    Teas mailing list

    Teas@ietf.org

    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas