Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review result: Has Nits
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-16
Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review Date: 05/23/2022
IETF LC End Date: unknown
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary:
Thanks to the authors for working on this document. I think it's almost ready
for publication. There is one error in the appendix A.2 example that should be
fixed before publication, and there are a few minor issues/nits that may be
considered before publication.
Major Issues:
Appendix A.2:
libyang[0]: Node "ldp-pw-type" not found as a child of "ldp-or-l2tp" node.
(path: Schema location
/ietf-l2vpn-ntw:l2vpn-ntw/vpn-services/vpn-service/vpn-nodes/vpn-node/signaling-option/signaling-option/ldp-or-l2tp/ldp-or-l2tp,
data location /ietf-l2vpn-ntw:ldp-or-l2tp, line number 61.) This should
"t-ldp-pw-type".
General Comment:
A lot of descriptions about nodes exported from RFC9181 in section 7 are
redundant from RFC9181.
Minor Issues and Nits (line numbers are from idnits):
397 Also, the L2NM uses the IANA-maintained modules "iana-bgp-l2-encaps"
398 (Section 8.1) and "iana-pseudowire-types" (Section 8.2) to identify a
399 Layer 2 encapsulation type.
[nits]: encapsulation type and pseudowire type.
409 view of the L2VPN service. Such a view is only visible within the
410 service provider and is not exposed outside (to customers, for
411 example).
[nits]: Visible within/visible to
500 'name': Sets a name to uniquely identify an ES within a service
501 provider network. This name is referenced in the VPN network
502 access level of the L2NM (Section 7.6).
[major]: I don't see where the "name" is referenced.
577 The 'vpn-profiles' container is used by the provider to maintain a
578 set of common VPN profiles that apply to VPN services (Section 7.2).
[nits]: to be consistent with section 7.2: to maintain/to define and maintain
629 This document does not make any assumption about the exact definition
630 of these profiles. The exact definition of the profiles is local to
631 each VPN service provider.
[nits]: These two sentences should be rewritten to be concise.
2785 leaf name {
2786 type string;
2787 description
2788 "Includes the name of the Ethernet Segment (ES).";
2789 }
[nits]: please update the description
3824 container active-global-parameters-profiles {
3825 description
3826 "Container for a list of global parameters
3827 profiles.";
3828 list global-parameters-profile {
3829 key "profile-id";
3830 description
3831 "List of active global parameters profiles.";
3832 leaf profile-id {
3833 type leafref {
3834 path "../../../../../global-parameters-profiles"
3835 + "/global-parameters-profile/profile-id";
3836 }
3837 description
3838 "Points to a global profile defined at the
3839 service level.";
3840 }
3841 uses parameters-profile;
3842 }
3843 }
[question]: profile-id is a leafref to the "global-parameters-profile", where
grouping "parameters-profile" is already included/used, why is it used here
again? is it for configuration overwritten?
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
