Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11

Radek Krejci <rkrejci@cesnet.cz> Mon, 19 October 2020 11:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
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 609973A0B12; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.446
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cesnet.cz
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 YW0sEgaok8Dz; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office2.cesnet.cz (office2.cesnet.cz [IPv6:2001:718:1:101::144:244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C798B3A0B0D; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (ip4-83-240-38-102.cust.nbox.cz [83.240.38.102]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by office2.cesnet.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EDE6A40006C; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:08:09 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cesnet.cz; s=office2-2020; t=1603105690; bh=/Z0RVbX73R5ehRQvO9Ks1axiheMSQSYn3FcSczmCB6c=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=QxEP9APqcqRw2S8Jltrz8dhAB3KhowQGi6/b0jKMX28kyS8SKc+kukwouZ7WFvN5w EbVWSjVOUlrWoucnEtHG4JZdUlHksUwmhvvnBDBPF062seyVmZgwb4nqw/aM766X5o D3oR58jH3kASPg90R9yVJi/dxMkgAqhfQoqHYowK+i7Db7sPwIUj1zDmwD3THNwmtU TdkPud4xsLy5NNyd1RnPRLvoQG7aSgCrV7MzrappyTlD60MX5SMkI0niCtxjYrbpfm K5hsYUhTZJZfd6vsAiSLHBRqfWbGmIOgtf7tz9LUTSkMDOrRPFFX8rzG9nbRMczmc2 VFSA26LwPlZ5Q==
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Cc: "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model.all@ietf.org>
References: <160285520741.1658.15600224799776978218@ietfa.amsl.com> <HE1PR07MB4156B1C2A43AF39C469F75B0F01E0@HE1PR07MB4156.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Radek Krejci <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
Autocrypt: addr=rkrejci@cesnet.cz; keydata= xsDiBEKfHd4RBADDE8CtJpEtOraXBKfQg0KCRZu7BRALixoLqW98U+N9h+PJ+gCnFaKNmnYu fXWLYKTJRUlaoMGIJOZjHpr/zvwozSR+VJkxCsTyNYTF8vIfN3Iwrxy9e8CNy/O1GI50K/ld WWMDl+3M2NztiBFPrCT0b/U5ErsN7bTrf2XLEQRpZwCg95POGbJPqPAaaok2KU5e2u0/flsD /AyC0aRO66Ci0OGw0R5sCJmzZ5xE5eBUvfx0N0IC16aojrwRYM5yf+bULtBDd4wPI1R+VH/X P6OrDgzlDmutJthVtYfCcho3IhqnVo1R/UvJxjF3ATKbOnVHL4xwiLSrRDb6rKVyd1+Kc7cq +JABgFl+JP4xndytvvUXdVqhuSUFBACCDdDtxutkclBrvEp2guBIftuT4/oK3IWxgtevlGfY LZXwdD6pIWS1z6y6xthoFTsLWS1QCFk2ZXmAgvOV/lnW0iGHwO5kCfzvWJq7weeH2FGuBgq+ WInxhdIFD/QwiXV6EPUWzAoC5Fx4Cz5ySFSd6n0C1Mrzin3ABtPHRpUT8s0pUmFkZWsgS3Jl amNpIChDRVNORVQpIDxya3JlamNpQGNlc25ldC5jej7CYgQTEQIAIgUCTT/pkAIbAwYLCQgH AwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQIMoxClN+p/31DwCfWVWX1IWaUa6+QbuVvZQIkb6m Rn8AoLRvdANGe/As/Nxabu+KKtrorkQ6zsBNBEKfHeIQBACwORs231u+o9/pM7y85ZlZhnNY iJziZ4P5W9lD5cwcEUFgTt1upUmjjSMWr5x4HL6o5jZeKOQMxiYP+8qA8OPEM6fzemS1Uj9M 6RXUaoUZFrcKD6BvneyyKuGgNa9bQfTG0aDOqaxy4lYFNcHVeo9sXJ+6adVxlCo/GzZ6zznn nwADBQP+IZQoao7aCFkZOVk8F5AW9Iiz0hk1trdCw88vD5fPMqcLxOQEsKrHAjibTWyOy1il 9zgLyVjcBzOs+v6UvbcJRybyaITC7j4IFPr78euVup/AeL+A9ay+ZWKHMFzALD+VjLyYAiRL w2MBjdqAKbPh2Ei1HXJoOX5JTWWnMRsBey/CSQQYEQIACQUCQp8d4gIbDAAKCRAgyjEKU36n /YssAKDVrEroZMSci018ipG4q6w11TsriwCghwCwX0isavqXJTbw10hwJePlDns=
Message-ID: <be08d670-bfaf-ce17-ae8e-87e1da5d8504@cesnet.cz>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:08:09 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB4156B1C2A43AF39C469F75B0F01E0@HE1PR07MB4156.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms090708000203090609060600"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/_H8RfCYkm1RR7M4Nqcut5iugIjs>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:08:19 -0000

Hi Daniele,

I've reviewed both together, just the reviews were split and uploaded
via datatracker to each of the drafts. Both reviews were sent into the
mailing lists (I see them at least in yang-doctors@ietf.org).

Regards,
Radek

Dne 19. 10. 20 v 11:52 Daniele Ceccarelli napsal(a):
> Hi Radek,
>
> Thanks a lot for the review, much appreciated. 
> We requested a joint review of the OTN tunnel model and the OTN topology model (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11 ).
> I'm just checking if you need a bit more time for the OTN topology model (which is perfectly fine) or if the request for the review of both drafts got lost.
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Daniele  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Radek Krejčí via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
> Sent: den 16 oktober 2020 15:33
> To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
> Cc: last-call@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11
>
> Reviewer: Radek Krejčí
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> This is my yang doctor review of draft draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-11
> with the ietf-otn-tunnel@2020-03-09 YANG module.
>
> Despite the size of the module, its structure is very simple repeatedly following a pattern of augmenting ietf-te by groupings defined in ietf-layer1-types module (except the single grouping defined in the module itself).
>
> Validation tools report a number of errors in the module. The problem is, that the module references (in augments) /te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel/te:p2p-primary-paths/ and /te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel/te:p2p-secondary-paths/ which are not present in current ietf-te@2020-07-12 module (the nodes were removed in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-23, the reference in the Section 10 of the draft is to
> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-25 but the module is not in line with this revision).
> So the module needs a crucial update. Also please consider if the grouping otn-tunnel-attributes is reusable in other modules. If the reusability is not the concern, I don't see any reason to define it instead of specifying the grouping content directly in the augment.
>
> Regarding the draft, as a reader, I would appreciate a more targeted description in section 3. Instead of just dumping the tree diagram in section 3.2, it would be useful to split it into several areas with some brief descriptions and examples.
>
> The list of paths is introduced in Section 6 as "the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability", but I don't see explained/described the mentioned sensitivity/vulnerability of those paths. Besides that, the paths include '..' as ellipsis, but '..' has its usual meaning in paths, please unify it with the format used in ietf-otn-topology and use '...'.
>
>
>