[Teas] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-06

Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 02 April 2019 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6301E1201DF; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 00:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.94.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <155419068227.6270.4463422400569037872@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 00:38:02 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/LizTl8fgyWZX_NZRHKuzWdHuS8c>
Subject: [Teas] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-06
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 07:38:03 -0000

Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Has Nits

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform
an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime
as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the
stage that the document has reached.

As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to
determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my
comments along with the other working group last call comments.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Document: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-06.txt
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 02/04/2019
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and
clear to understand. The draft is quite complete.

The document defines a collection of common data types and groupings in YANG
data modeling language. These derived common types and groupings are intended
to be imported by modules that model Traffic Engineering (TE) configuration and
state capabilities.

I found some minor nits and have some minor questions, it would be nice if they
could be addressed.

Major issues: Not found

Minor issues: Not found

Nits/editorial comments:

- NBMA could be expanded in pag 14  NBMA (Non-broadcast multiple-access
network) or maybe added into Acronyms and Abbreviations section. Same for SF
(pag 32), SD (Pag 33), APS (pag 35) and PM (pag 46)

-In Pag. 43 identity oduc --> identity oducn ?

- In pag 45, default forward --> default "forward" ?

- Pag 58 ihe --> the  , ranage --> range

Questions:

- In te-admin-status (pag. 12) is the status "unknown" not applicable in here?

- In te-recovery-status (pag 17)  the status reversion-succeeded woud be not
necessary in this case, cause we have recovery-succeeded status available?

- In pag 25, the lsp-state-type does not have a reference is that ok?, because
it is used as base for other parameters.

- In general, I see some parameters that do not have reference specified, it is
because the reference is already specified in the base, for example, pag 25,
objective-function-type has reference, but then of-minimize-load-path,
of-maximize-residual-bandwith do not have it. Is it because by default is the
one of the base, in this case RFC4657? or it is because they are defined in
this document? But for example lsp-protection-type is used as base and does not
have reference added.

-In pag. 34, in the description for protection-external-commands, should
include in the description the word "base", since it is used as base.

- In pag. 55 the description "RFC 3209 and others", should be added additional
rfcs, instead of "others"?

Thanks for this document,

Ines.