Re: [Teas] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-10

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 20 February 2021 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.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 C55033A1387; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 05:26:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 XqCtFGPxyOMc; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 05:26:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x632.google.com (mail-ej1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A51E13A1386; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 05:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x632.google.com with SMTP id n13so20845282ejx.12; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 05:26:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=h2bRf1rEzp0u56DnslE42IilrMH1IQ89EcEcGfULU/s=; b=bmjNiIWbjZ4C6TtjZM55ieGXp83kHMOmhGkZjzM7qqWq6WI2u2PZuKmbUDvP/n2Tw+ nFenYq2WbIJqxsvSgafXxxzI36eomNtk4uCfj3WvJqQEFNL35ff0/ThCBy5gYFQwL7TG X08f8cvUJQOG4gaQR302SDJusFQIKX4i8C58CSjjGV97liPyM6sVFWCuc8Q+LjWww+7D PR5Cwcyta0G2KqEUFrxsy4S5c0FUxuc2TC8g3BIVjy7wrhJjQoLDVEhr+rDGgWgwlk2k fHTBATBwR2ak3Ztuy41VqG509nIJZCIhumgdfWTuCXIEpgnFvwoGA2AJJ6Y1j8JbphbH be5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=h2bRf1rEzp0u56DnslE42IilrMH1IQ89EcEcGfULU/s=; b=YuIsgVnQ8YOArsIm5vIBaob83/Y3y2GLT7+E8CSYSBIl/05n8wO1aQHAHeAWLsp0t9 DGm9K/hh8rVgRriVXUgLi7Lkrig7OQqelYVL6vF7Wx9+BzzCIrn5/HdpSKglL8JYXfTg jWIsE3pnDMBuM1Svs1/3skajFHOUmCtvMWOHV1oeeFz64pH6mYgomc63liFA9j9Vpeaq vr02ywTwmEhJahS2nDL/QoxG/So35scJP9qaJtdwUUPLtnYx1PRn+4cUvD+V46NdA2Kg eonb4DubuXAj2yPDN2hsF4BmUA8IWa8uRT4NA+iWiuFEcbbG3HBVCVM4UvuAlfspAYzW EO6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530crGq10CRcl5UgtkvN8D9MXKIZMaSmTCWEqYGD4s57UdfVMVrG VNHwA/4RDKhGVSiVhalH+GOWnbmrqMJD+57ISQ+sYACGVsWMDA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyXm9x9heW1giuGKASKy8g0cwvhz9RLsl4VL6qF8UVZ/NGulbu0j73VgYC4joeEIAjVuqQWs/hh8oZtznuW5Xs=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3885:: with SMTP id q5mr13203319ejd.105.1613827560794; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 05:26:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160847918971.3738.423965928103853275@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <160847918971.3738.423965928103853275@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 18:55:24 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn7KxxgNT++hLcNKbRAVuQ7zMbkGcfZMtB0JJARPYmaR5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Cc: yang-doctors@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang.all@ietf.org, "TEAS WG (teas@ietf.org)" <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007d6c3305bbc48254"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/a5aP9pD7iddU9qZSTXFeDxMVUhc>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-10
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: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 13:26:05 -0000

Hi Andy,

Thanks for your review. The new -11 version is out which takes your
comments into consideration.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang/
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-11

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 9:16 PM Andy Bierman via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Reviewer: Andy Bierman
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
>
> Major Issues:
>
>   None
>
> Moderate Issues:
>
> 1)
>    leaf /ap/access-point-list/access-point-id
>    leaf /vn/vn-list/vn-id
>    leaf /vn/vn-list/vn-member-list/vn-member-id
>
>    These list keys use type inet:uri.
>    You should consider the implementation complexity here.
>    Will servers all correctly convert any arbitrary URI to its canonical
>    representation? The draft should address this issue.
>
> 2)
>   leaf /vn/vn-list/oper-status
>   leaf /vn/vn-list/admin-status
>
>   These objects use vn-status-type, vn-admin-state-type
>   The use of identities for even simple "up/down" status types
>   seems extreme. The conformance for an enumeration is clear
>   (mandatory), but not for an identityref type.
>     - E.g., Is is mandatory for a vendor to support vn-state-up,down?
>       A vendor could write their own identities and ignore the standard
>       identities.
>
>
> 3)
>   rpc /vn-compute
>   The procedure for this operation is not explained here.
>   A full description or reference to normative test is needed.
>    - what does the server do with the input?
>    - what output is expected? Any variants based on the inputs
>      should be explained.
>    - any interoperability considerations wrt/ use of these
>      common groupings in this RPC context?
>    - what errors can occur? Specify any error-tags, etc. that
>      the server MUST/SHOULD include in the response
>
>
> Minor Issues:
>
> 4)
>  - naming inconsistent within /ap and /vn
>    access-point is spelled out and vn is not
>    Suggest: shorten access-point to ap
>
> 5)
>  - naming a list entry with the the suffix -list is redundant.
>    YANG lists do not have any conceptual container or way to
>    reference all the entries (if that what this naming intends)
>    Suggest:
>      s/access-point-list/ap/
>      s/vn-list/vn/
>      s/vn-member-list/vn-member/
>
> 6)
>   - leaf /vn/vn-list/vn-member-list/src/multi-src
>   - leaf /vn/vn-list/vn-member-list/dest/multi-dest
>     Looks like these leafs should each have a default-stmt.
>     What does it mean if the multi-src-dest feature is supported
>     but these leafs are missing from the config?
>
>
>
>