Hi Susan, all,
Please find responses below, <ALEX> Thanks --- Alex From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 9:41 AM To: 'Alexander Clemm' <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [i2rs] Issues raised by Lada on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo in draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-10 review. Alex: In doing my final shepherd's review of draft-ietf-yang-network-topo for -17.txt version I found a few Yang Doctor's comments you need to resolve. The review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-10 contains comments from Lada on Comments to draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14. See the message linked to by: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/ZdwwMUpvXaBiCQN6A3hm76joS 7Q In this reviewing, draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17.txt, I do not see the following addressed: 1. With YANG 1.1, the network type information looks like a perfect candidate for identities (with multiple inheritance). Instead, it is modelled with presence containers, which is cumbersome and redundant. I don't see any reasons for doing so, if there are any, then they should be explained in sec. 4.4.8. Comment from shepherd: I do not see the explanation Lada requested in for "why containers" in: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/ZdwwMUpvXaBiCQN6A3hm76joS 7Q https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/0AcgU2Zr6RoMgF-vEx-3NHFh6 dM <ALEX> We do want to retain the ability to represent topologies of multiple types and to construct correlated topologies, which is a major ODL use case: 'I want to see both OpenFlow and NETCONF view of my device state in one place'. So, we would like to keep it as is. </ALEX> 2. The document defines "supporting network" and then says "A supporting network is in effect an underlay network." In the subsequent text "underlay network" is used almost exclusively. So perhaps the term "supporting network" should be dropped altogether? Comment from shepherd: If you wish to keep supporting network to align with TEAS or other work please just point to it. Or if you wish to keep the term because of common use, make that comment. Either way - please resolve or respond to LADA with reason. <ALEX> We reread the document and believe this should remain as is. TEAS (one of our major use cases) also uses the term underlay; the term underlay is fairly common. An the same time, use of "supporting" in the model itself is appropriate since it expresses the dependency. </ALEX> 3. The text should be better aligned with the terminology of draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores. In particular, "system-controlled" should be used instead of "server-provided". Comment from shepherd: If you can use the "system-controlled", it would be better. If you cannot, please indicate why in the definitions. <ALEX> Yes, this has been addressed. It is all system controlled now. </ALEX> 4. Is it necessary to use URIs for identifying all objects in the data model. URIs are difficult to use, so applications are likely to introduce some abbreviations and keep an internal mapping, which could cause problems, e.g. when matching objects in notifications with a GUI representation. In my view, it should be sufficient to use URIs for network-id and plain strings for other IDs, because all other objects are encapsulated inside a network, so their name conflicts shouldn't matter. Comment from shepherd: A comment should be included on why URIs. Did I miss the comment? <ALEX> This issue is a matter of design preference -- using strings is certainly possible, but it has the downside of being a flat namespace, which does not have any semantic meaning outside of YANG model. With URIs, the identifier is structured and it has an inherent property that it is something someone somewhere may be able to resolve -- such that a node's identifier can be turned into, say, RESTCONF URL to access the management endpoint... Unless Lada insists, we prefer to keep as is. It also avoids the need to perform augmentation to add URL to the model in addition to strings, as the Open Daylight folks have indicated they would otherwise have to do (and which clearly adds complexity that could just as easily be avoided.) </ALEX> Perhaps we can chat today at the social on where you are with these changes. Let's see if we can both celebrate IETF 100 by submitting the base topology draft and l3 draft to the IESG. Sue Hares
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
