Re: [Teas] Fw: Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo -09

[t petch <[e-mail]>]

On 29/03/2021 10:37, tom petch wrote:
> ________________________________________
> From: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 24 February 2021 17:07
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thank you much for the additional comments. We have posted an updated version https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo-09. Section 2.2 has been reworded. I'm wondering if it is any better.

Xufeng,

Yes, I am getting there but it remains a tough read.  I think that the 
problem is partly that the work of TEAS lacks an overall structure and 
that, with hindsight, the organisation could be more rational but that 
is the way that the IETF works and is not going to change; and this 
brings together many different technologies, some of which I am 
comfortable with, others not.  It makes references to other documents 
more necessary for me.

So,
1.3 Prefixes
you need to add tet which you (rightly) use in the I-D.

2.2
/  <other netowrk / <other network/

OLD
Each type of topologies is indicated by
"network-types" defined in
    [RFC8345].

NEW
Each type of topology is indicated by
a YANG presence container which augments
"network-types" as defined in
    [RFC8345].


The five following references ae inconsistent in their use of YANG 
prefix.  I suggest including all the prefix in the path statements.

The five references need references, all of them!  The I-D for packet is 
not obvious to me.

2.5
    by augmenting the container "l3-topology-attributes" in the L3 
toplogy model.
needs a reference to the I-D IMHO.  I would like to see references in 
the subsequent sections as well, for those who are dipping into a 
section and not reading this cover-to-cover.

2.6
Wrong!  This is not the YANG module of -09!

2.7
Wrong! This is not the YANG module of -09!

3
The use of multiple presence containers stands out to me as odd.  I 
think that the reason for it (assuming there is one!) needs explaining.

4
   description "Augment only for SR topology.";
May make sense now but may not in future. Perhaps
   description "Augment only for SR MPLS topology.";
to cater for IPv6 which must be on the way. This applies to all the YANG 
'when'.

Appendix B
                  "router-id": ["203.0.113.3"],
                  "prefix": [
                    {
                      "prefix": "203.0.113.1/32",
Should that be 113.1?

Tom Petch




> Best regards,
> - Xufeng
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:34 AM tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> From: Teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: 13 November 2020 01:04
>
> Current Status:
>
>    *  Received further valuable comments from Tom Petch.
>    *  The updated revision -08 was posted on Nov 1, 2020:
>       - Addressed some review comments from Tom
>       - Updated the reference to the latested draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
>
> Open Issues:
>
>    *  Authors working on addressing Tom’s comments.
>
>