Re: [Teas] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Darren,

Thanks for your review. An update has been posted. See diff -
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22&url2=draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-23&difftype=--html

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:22 AM Darren Dukes via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reviewer: Darren Dukes
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> I reviewed this draft and appreciate the effort that went into the
> document.  I
> did not find any major issues with this draft and only a few minor
> issues/nits.
>
> ===========================
> Minor
>
> Section 1
> - Is the TE model an Abstract TE model (vs underlay or overlay) as per
> RFC8795?
>  If so can you elaborate on that?
>
>
Dhruv: It is "abstract" and relevant sentence is added.



> Section 2.2
> For some VN members of a VN, the customers are allowed to configure the
> actual
> path (i.e., detailed virtual nodes and virtual links) over the VN/abstract
> topology agreed mutually between CNC and MDSC prior to or a topology
> created by
> the MDSC as part of VN instantiation. - Please rewrite this sentence, "MDSC
> prior to or a topology", I could not parse the intended meaning.
>
>
Dhruv: Text updated.



> Section 2.2
> - Please provide a definition for S1-S11. I believe they're abstract nodes
> as
> defined in an abstract TE model as per RFC8795.
>
>
Dhruv: I have added text to specify that they makeup the underlay topology.



> ============================
> Nits
>
> Section 4.3.1
> - Is there a reason for the difference in names for path-affinities-values
> vs
> path-affinity-names - could/should you make affinity names consistent? if
> so
> please do.
>
>
Dhruv: This is coming from a grouping from RFC 8776 and thus too late to
make any change :)



> - Please replace all MSDC with MDSC
>
>
>
Dhruv: Done!

Thanks again for your review!

- Dhruv