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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 13 March 2018 21:20 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 139F6126CF6; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:20:58 -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 9Ar3vo3MI1VR; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:20:56 -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 6D4E8126CD6; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6282; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1520976056; x=1522185656; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=nwkrVzQoA+wZWuZv/lw75ZnlUhrQ9if6FmZ9GSM0228=; b=EkczOcfqwHwJwmYkDVJOynsy17/rSvNfka0wJu0X8FEyPqgqD/QLTAdi hYFj0mtayAvM6LbIiA0OQLBVnqR/vhV0f9A6iE0UDHFHPgJwqUckzMOUC z/naC5wbfdoRCekKUSs0d4JVGcfgDJFfZ6v1FrN5w4s6xItqUbwmJwgwP M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DbAABUQKha/4YNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYMjLWVwKAqDRoodjXSCBIEWlDGCFQoYC4UCAhqDBiE0GAE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQEBAQEBAmsnhSQBAQQBASEROgsQAgEIDgQGAgImAgICJQsVAg4CBAENBYU?= =?us-ascii?q?YD6wQgiaIYYIFBYENhCiCLoM8KYMFgy4BAQMBhHUwghIgBJpWCQKGQoogDoF?= =?us-ascii?q?VhDWISYVhhBmHKQIREwGBKwEeOECBEnAVGSEqAYIYg1EBCG13jimBGAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,466,1515456000"; d="scan'208";a="360371396"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Mar 2018 21:20:55 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2DLKth3018153 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:20:55 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 17:20:54 -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 17:20:54 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
CC: YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang.all@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-09
Thread-Index: AQHTuxBhx1yNvn+GQU2ozx/7VFKP16POrDSA
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:20:54 +0000
Message-ID: <ED41D824-69F8-4A01-92E7-890E908BB0CE@cisco.com>
References: <151255960762.30655.17225294251460480729@ietfa.amsl.com> <20171206.124611.1073986528289329597.mbj@tail-f.com> <1F5FF6F1-1309-4A89-9A79-4607C2423CEE@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1F5FF6F1-1309-4A89-9A79-4607C2423CEE@cisco.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: <FAD2D92896CB9540880B3EACDA3500CB@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/8gi_6DuwL-GE9buAttK4tehP4d0>
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 21:20:58 -0000

Hi Martin, 
We believe that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-yang/ satisfies your comments. Please take a look.
Thanks,
Acee
    
    On 12/6/17, 6:46 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
    
        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
        
        11 YANG modules?  Isn't there just one?
        
        
        I would like to add two quick comments to Lada's review.
        
        o  Remove all "revision" statements except the one that says "initial
           revision".   The idea is to have one revision statement per
           published version (i.e., RFC).
        
        
        o  Many of the nodes have quite rudimentary descriptions, and the
           "reference" statement is rarely used.  For example:
        
                 leaf lsa-id {
                   type yang:dotted-quad;
                   mandatory true;
                   description "LSA ID.";
                 }
        
           It seems as the description is put there just to keep the tools
           quiet.  I know that it is painful to write good descriptions, but
           it does help the consumer of the data model.
        
        
        /martin
        
        
        > "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".
        > 
        > 
        > _______________________________________________
        > yang-doctors mailing list
        > yang-doctors@ietf.org
        > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
        >