(correcting typo to send to draft authors)
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote:
> As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-06
> before progressing it to IETF Last Call.
>
> First, I would like to thank the authors and contributors of this document
> for their work.
>
> Regrettably, I will not progress this document with 9!!!! authors (one of
> whose email already bounces). Please select a few editors and update it.
> I have scheduled this for the January 5, 2017 telechat - which means that
> it must be ready for IETF Last Call no later than Dec 13 & preferrably
> sooner, given the end-of-year vacations typical.
>
> Please find my detailed review below.
>
> Major:
>
> a) Please clarify whether there are existing WG models that depend on this
> module.
>
> b) "augment /nd:networks/nd:network/nd:node/lnk:termination-point:
>
> +--rw l3-termination-point-attributes
> +--rw (termination-point-type)?
> +--:(ip)
> | +--rw ip-address* inet:ip-address
> +--:(unnumbered)
> +--rw unnumbered-id? uint32 "
> Is the unnumbered-id an ifIndex? Can you declare it with that type?
> Similarly in the model on p. 12:
> "case unnumbered {
>
> leaf unnumbered-id {
> type uint32;
> description
> "Unnumbered interface identifier";
> }"
> why isn't this an ifIndex?!?
>
> Minor:
>
> 1) Intro: Please clean up paragraphs 2&3. When this is an RFC, it wont
> matter what the logic was for pulling the L3 topology model out. That can
> go. Similarly, there are existing WG drafts for IS-IS and OSPF models.
> Rather than "expecting", how about a reference? Are there such models?
>
> 2) Intro: Do we really need the paragraph on why to choose YANG?
>
> 3)Intro: How about an informative reference to the TED topology model?
>
> 4) Sec 2: Datastore definition - please add a pointer to the NetMod RFC
> that defines it or at least indicate that this isn't a new definition &
> where it comes from.
>
> 5) On p. 9: " typedef link-flag-type {
>
> type identityref {
> base "flag-identity";
> }
> description "Prefix flag attributes"; "
> Shouldn't the description be "Link flag attributes"?
>
> 6) Section 6 with the non-normative examples should be an Appendix.
>
> 7) Contributors should be listed with at most address information (which
> usually includes affiliation) - but such affiliation should be
> correct!(e.g. Ken Gray) or just by name. We are all participating as
> individuals - not company representatives.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
