[yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo-04
Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 10 June 2019 13:02 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C3112018F; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 06:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.97.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <156017177005.10755.7672289550345761824@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 06:02:50 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/IsKbh7w1ez8IRI9VwM8jK59exiE>
Subject: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo-04
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 13:02:51 -0000
Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka Review result: Ready with Issues This document and YANG module "ietf-sr-topology" contained therein contribute two new types to the family of network topology data models: segment routing and segment routing traffic engineering topologies. The document also provides a companion module "ietf-sr-topology-state" intended for non-NMDA implementations. >From the YANG point of view, both modules are in a relatively good shape. Also, as far as I can tell, they satisfy the requirements specified in RFC 8345. The example instance data contained in Appendix B successfully passes formal validation against the date model, which is far from commonplace for early versions of documents. See however comment #1 below. **** Comments 1. I have argued several times that using URIs as identifiers of all network topology objects in RFC 8345 is an overkill. Now, the present draft demonstrates the consequences: id values used in many places of the example data (Appendix B) are not valid URIs! For example, "link-id" leaves have values like "D1,1-2-1,D2,2-1-1", which is not a URI. This type violation isn't caught by validating tools because the "ietf-inet-types:uri" type doesn't specify a regular expession pattern. However, its description states clearly that the type represents URI as defined by STD 66. 2. The module uses (indirectly) the grouping "srlr" from the "ietf-segment-routing-common" module. This grouping defines two leaves, "lower-bound" and "upper-bound". I assume it is expected that the former must not be greater than the latter. This is however not enforced by the data model. My suggestion is to add a "must" statement to the "srlr" grouping corresponding to this constraint. 3. Typos in the module text: - description of grouping "sr-topology-type": s/toplogies/topologies/ - description of container "sr-mpls": s/Indiates/Indicates/
- [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-… Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker
- Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of dr… Xufeng Liu