Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-09

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 13 March 2018 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B7C412D94F; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 eOztHliOJYwD; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67FCF12E03B; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4208; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1520975617; x=1522185217; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=bM7aq72vV4oGQazmglbZ1C1TTVxFNrMTsfsy0pBCbVk=; b=cbqb0NjbC1VzSXvq1TLYT+WWNd301zMOhw80y87JgubRnu6oRjEd6O1a If+klRpcVhC05Pbfm1axJMeHrXki4ajRudf6iUlt7W+pEhPVlDygT05+Y J/ddAvA8Jqmzv/kAKWCqp4eDX8lnJO3W5gEonpUvggO5gZRv53nY6cqsR c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DaAADqPaha/5FdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNQZXAoCoNGih2NdIMalDGCFQojhQICGoMGITQYAQIBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQECayeFJAYjEUUQAgEIEggCJgICAjAVAg4CBAENBYUYD6wFgiaIYYIFBYE?= =?us-ascii?q?NhCiCLoM8KYMFgy4CAwGBbYMIMIISIASaVgkChkKKIIFjhDWISYVhhBmHKQI?= =?us-ascii?q?REwGBKwEeOECBEnAVGUsBghiER3eOKYEYAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,466,1515456000"; d="scan'208";a="360369028"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Mar 2018 21:13:36 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2DLDaZA024762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:13:36 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 17:13:35 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 17:13:35 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ospf-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-09
Thread-Index: AQHTuxAlB+GkraWOBU+qDRqEXQX+KA==
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:13:35 +0000
Message-ID: <056853FB-B07E-445B-B046-0C6AAE00683F@cisco.com>
References: <151255960762.30655.17225294251460480729@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <151255960762.30655.17225294251460480729@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <579B70553BD8D947A76DF2C693613CEA@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/-bAmzA4WIt9dHBFCY2y7N8iH1Q4>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-09
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:14:07 -0000

Hi Lada, 
We believe that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-yang/ satisfies your comments. Please take a look ASAP as we intend to WG last called the ietf-ospf YANG model imminently. 

Thanks,
Co-Authors 

On 12/6/17, 6:26 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:

    Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka
    Review result: Ready with Issues
    
    The data model defined in this document is a massive piece of work: it
    consists of 11 YANG modules and defines around 1200 schema nodes. The
    "ietf-ospf@2017-10-30" module is compatible with the NMDA architecture.
    
    **** Comments
    
    1. Unless there is a really compelling reason not to do so, the
       "ietf-ospf" should declare YANG version 1.1. For one,
       "ietf-routing" that is being augmented by "ietf-ospf" already
       declares this version. Some of my suggestions below also assume
       version 1.1.
    
    2. The "ietf-ospf" can work only with the new NMDA-compatible
       revisions of some modules, such as "ietf-interfaces" and
       "ietf-routing". I understand it is not desirable to import such
       modules by revision, but at least it should be mentioned in a
       description attached to every such import.
    
    3. Maybe the draft could mention that implementations should supply a
       default routing domain as a system-controlled resource.
    
    4. In "when" expressions, the module uses literal strings for
       identities. This is known to be problematic, the XPath functions
       derived-from() or derived-from-or-self() should be used instead.
    
    5. Some enumerations, such as "packet-type" and "if-state-type"
       define enum identifiers with uppercase letters and/or underscores,
       for example "Database-Description" or "LONG_WAIT". RFC6087bis
       recommends that only lowercase letters, numbers and dashes. I think
       this convention should be observed despite the fact that the
       current names are traditionally used in OSPF specs. The
       "ietf-routing" module also defines "router-id" even though the
       documents use "Router ID".
    
    6. The types of LSA headers are modelled as integers. While OSPF gurus
       probably know these numbers by heart, it is not very
       reader-frienly. So at least some references to documents defining
       these numbers should be provided, but my suggestion is to consider
       implementing them with identities. It seems it might also be useful
       to define some "abstract" identities for these types. For example,
       if "opaque-lsa" is defined, then the definition of container
       "opaque" could simply use
    
         when "derived-from(../../header/type, 'ospf:opaque-lsa')";
    
       instead of
    
          when "../../header/type = 9 or "
                  + "../../header/type = 10 or "
                  + "../../header/type = 11";
    
    7. The title of sec. 2.9 should be "OSPF Notifications" rather than
       "OSPF notification".