Hi Mahesh,

  Thanks for taking an initial stab at it. I’ll work on adding these 
clarifications and rev the draft. Improving readability is definitely important!

On 1/12/18, 7:30 AM, "i2rs on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani" 
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

    Reviewer: Mahesh Jethanandani
    Review result: Not Ready
    
    I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate’s 
ongoing
    effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
     These comments were written with the intent of improving the
    operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in 
last
    call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors
    and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last
    call comments.
    
    Document reviewed:  draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-12
    
    Summary:
    This draft specifies a information model for the RIB to enable defining a
    standardized data model.  Such a data model can be used to define an 
interface
    to the RIB from an entity that may even be external to the network device. 
    This interface can be used to support new use-cases being defined by the 
IETF
    I2RS WG.
    
    Document Status:
    Not ready
    
    Comments:
    
    This document is a information model, and as such does not define a data 
model
    that is directly used by a protocol. Therefore it has no operational or
    management impact.
    
    Having tried to read the document, I believe a lot can be done to improve 
its
    readability. At times it appears that different people took a crack at
    different sections of the document, without agreeing on the overall 
structure
    of the document.
    
    There is also something funny about how the section numbers have been given 
and
    the diagrams placed within them.
    
    Section 2.
    
    Figure 2 shows the RIB model. By putting it where it is, I would have 
expected
    that all the elements of the diagram would be explained in that section. One
    has to read section 2.1 and 2.2 to figure the details.
    
    Even then it is difficult to comprehend by reading all sections what the
    diagram is trying to convey. First of all, it appears that there can be
    multiple routing instances, but the diagram refers to one routing instance. 
If
    the idea is to refer to one routing instance in the RIB model, then as the 
name
    suggests, it is not the RIB model, but one routing instance of the RIB 
model.
    Either change the name or show the diagram with multiple instances.
    
    Also if each RIB consists of 0..N routes, that is not clear from the 
diagram.
    It appears that each routing-instance has 1..N RIBs and 0..N routes with no
    relationship to each other.
    
    Section 2.3
    
    Similarly for Figure 3, the diagram is in section 2.3, but if one has to
    understand the diagram, one has to read section 2.4 to understand the 
diagram.
    
    Figure 3 shows the route model. It specifies 6 match conditions, but shows 
only
    5 in the diagram. What happened to IP multicast match?
    
    Section 2.4
    
    Figure 4 is titled Nexthop model. There is no explanation of the figure in
    Section 2.4 and what the different pieces of the diagram mean. Instead, it
    talks about how nexthop points to a BGP peer, a reference which is not 
clear by
    looking at the diagram.
    
    I would have expected at least an explanation of the rest of the diagram. 
The
    next section gets into Nexthop types, with no apparent ties to the diagram.
    
    Section 3 and 4.
    
    There is a lot of common text between the two sections. I do not know if 
there
    is a way to combine it.
    
    There is no word like modify-able or even modifiable. s/are modify-able
    objects/can be modified/
    
    Section 6. RIB grammar
    
    The section says the grammar is intended to help the reader better 
understand
    the english text description. But it then goes on to say that if there is 
lack
    of clarify in the grammar the english text will take precedence. So what 
gives
    - english text or grammar?
    
    Also where is the english text?
    
    At this point I stopped and could not comprehend the rest of the document or
    its organization.
    
    _______________________________________________
    i2rs mailing list
    [email protected]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
    


_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to