Hi Shenshen, Many thanks for your review comments. Please see my response inline.
Thanks, Jensen On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 6:05 PM Shenshen Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, all > > I wrote a review for draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-07, following the call for > volunteers from Jordi. > Since I am not confident with my comments, please feel free to ignore > them. The following comments are started with the related part of the draft. > > 1. The whole draft > It confuses me if this draft claims "a single data model" or "multiple > models". > > Some sentences take a single model: > * defines a YANG data model (Introduction) > * Scope of data model (title of Sec 4.1.) > * The data model (Table 2) > > Some assume multiple models: > * YANG Data Models (title of this document) > * The following items are in the scope of the data models (Sec 4.1.) > > I prefer a single model (with multiple modules). By the way, there are > some more > "singular and plural" issues, e.g., titles of A.3. and A.5. > Thanks for catching the inconsistent words. We will go through the whole document and fix them. > > 2. Figure 1 > The description of Figure 1 seems to be ambiguous - it presents > * Both the server manager and information resource manager will > report statistics data to performance monitor and logging and > fault manager. > But Figure 1 shows that Information Resource Manager only reports to > Logging and Fault Manager, rather than both two Managers. > Maybe the "report" label is confusing. We want to label "report" on all four arrows from server manager and information resource manager to performance monitor and logging & fault manager. We will refine Figure 1 to make it clear. > > Also, the 2nd paragraph of the description presents > * The algorithm plugins will register callbacks to the corresponding > ALTO information resources upon the configuration; ... > But I cannot find the corresponding components in Figure 1 > (I assume the "plugin" shown in Figure 1 refers to the 5th paragraph). > Not sure which components are missing here. Algorithm plugins or ALTO information resources? > > 3. Sec 5.4.1. > It presents > * If poll-interval is zero, the ALTO server will not fetch the data > source. > I wonder whether the poll-interval should be allowed to be zero since it > seems cannot work. > If it should, should we define such a mode differently from > proactive/reactive modes? > Although I don't understand why it cannot work, I agree that it is a good idea to move it to a different mode. > > 5. Some relationships/structures are not clear to me > a) The R3 seems to be overlapped with R6 and R7. > And the 'meta' defined in Sec 5.3.3. seems to be overlapped with Sec 6.2. > R3 focuses on the writable data nodes. R6 and R7 focus on the read-only data nodes. > > > b) Sec 5.3. presents "Server-level Operation and Management" and > Sec 5.4. presents "Server Configuration Management". > Does it mean the Management (the "M" in "O&M") consists of > server-level management and configuration management? > Management ("M" in "O&M") is not limited to server-level management and configuration management. RFC 6291 has more concrete descriptions of this term. For ALTO, RFC 7285 (Sec 16) suggests 6 pieces of management components. The server-level management in this document defines an aggregation of multiple management components. I guess this makes you confused. We will add a paragraph at the beginning of Sec 5.3 to clarify this. > > Clarifying their relationships explicitly would be helpful to me. > > And there are some minor comments: > 1. Sec 5.1. > * The container 'alto-server' contains both configuration and > operational data > Use "configurational" to be consistent with "operational". > > 2. Figure 4 > * IETF ALTO Server Level Subtree Structure (title) > Use "Server-Level" to be consistent with other parts. > > 3. Sec 5.3. > * The ALTO server instance contains a set of data nodes server-level > operation > and management for ALTO that are shown in Figure 4. > It seems a word (e.g. "for") is missing between "nodes" and "server-level > operation". > > 4. Sec 5.4.3. > * They declare the Capabilities of the ALTO information resource ... > Use "Capabilities (Section 9.1.3 of [RFC7285])" to make it clear. > > 5. Sec 5.3.4. > * All the related configurations are covered by the server listen > stack. > Use "ALTO Server Listen Stack" to make it clear. > > 6. Sec 5.4.2. > * Each resource entry provides configurations defining how to create > or update an ALTO information resource. > This topic sentence does not mention "remove". Maybe use expressions like > "One can create, update or remove an ALTO information resource by adding, > updating, or removing a resource entry" or some other expressions. > Many thanks for the editing suggestions. We will consider them. > > In the end, here is a random thought: is there any concern about the > shutdown, or just assume the ALTO server would never be deliberately shut > down? > That's a very good point. The operation of server shutdown is not in the scope. But the server crash should be considered. Right now, the data model does not include any healthcheck-related data nodes explicitly. The syslog may be used to handle this. > > Best Regards, > Shenshen > > Shenshen Chen > > PhD student > > Tongji University > > _______________________________________________ > > Email [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
