Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-29

Thanks Lou, Tom and Adrian.
The authors thank Tom and Adrian for their review and comments, and are actively working on addressing them.
Authors will follow up with a meeting with reviewers if needed.

Regards,
Tarek (for co-authors)

From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:52 AM
To: t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-29
Tom,

Thank you for this (well at some level ;-)

Authors,

Can you work with Tom, perhaps even schedule some time to meet -
assuming he's willing/available - and come up with an approach to
address his comments.

Thanks,

Lou

PS I still like my page numbers so use the htmlized link on datatracker,
e.g., https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te  -
the .txt version also has them...

On 4/14/2022 7:15 AM, t petch wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 12:17, t petch wrote:
>> On 21/03/2022 13:28, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This starts working group last call on
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te/
>>>
>>> Given the size of the document and this week's meeting, this will be an
>>> extended LC. The working group last call ends on April 13th.
>>> Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.
>>>
>>> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
>>> and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
>>> This is useful and important, even from authors.
> I have not reviewed the document - it is too complex, largely due to the
> way in is constructed - but have seen enough to think, 'Not ready for
> publication'.
>
> Security has the concept of number used once, soomething which makes it
> harder for anyone else to know what is going on.  The equivalent in YANG
> is 'grouping used once' which I often see YANG Doctors point out and ask
> to be removed since they increase complexity, reduce ease of use. This
> I-D does just that and goes further, nesting groupings extensively which
> makes it even harder, verging on impossible, to understand.
>
> I start at a high level, as in Section 5, intending to 'drill down' to
> the lower levels, leaf and its type and description, to see if they make
> sense, if they do what is wanted, and the highest level is good; the
> English needs some tweaking but nothing I am unclear about.
>
> With s.5.1.1, I get uncertain - where is the description of path
> in-segment and path out-segment that feature in the tree diagram?
>
> With s.5.1.2 I know that something is wrong.  The YANG snippets are not
> those of this I-D; they would help if they did but they relate to a
> different I-D.  Thus the YANG has, buried in a grouping used once,
> leaf description
> leaf admin-state
> leaf operational-state
> s.5.1.2 has
> description
> operational-state
> encoding
> a related, but different, module.
>
> Likewise, the YANG has bidirectional after dst-tunnel-tp-id in another
> grouping used once, not in this snippet.  At which point, I cry 'Hold,
> enough'; I cannot trust what I am reading.
>
> Another problem, besides difficulty of understanding, with grouping used
> once, is the difficulty of relating the different parts of the I-D,
> description, tree diagram, YANG and so on.  The obvious solution is
> comment lines showing where globals ends and tunnel starts, in the YANG,
> in the tree diagram, in the introductory tex.  That is pointless here
> since in the YANG, they are adjacent 'uses' and at a more detailed
> level, globals, tunnels and so on are all jumbled up.
>
> The IETF has abolished the page number so you will have 40
> undifferentiated pages of tree diagram followed by 40 undifferentiated
> pages of YANG, but with objects in a different order, courtesy of
> grouping and grouping used once.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>> It has been a few years since I reviewed this so the
>> Copyright 2019
>> seems about right.
>>
>> However, reading Adrian's comments brought back memories and indeed, my
>> notes say 'three e-mail of comments' which suggests to me that they were
>> never acted on:-)
>>
>> So
>> - there are ten references in the YANG to RFC that do not appear in the
>> I-D references (used to be four)
>>
>> - abbreviations need expanding, I suggest in s.2 with a separate heading
>> to the current s.2
>>
>> - http: needs to be https:
>>
>> - the TLP are out of date (that's new)
>>
>> - the format of the tree diagram is clumsy - identifiers are split in
>> the middle, across lines
>>
>> - revision should be 'Initial ..' not 'latest'
>>
>> - /constraitnt/constraint/
>>
>> I will plough on - my target is by Easter, ie COB 14th April
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Lou (Co-Chair & doc Shepherd)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Teas mailing list
>>> Teas@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>> .
>>>

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas