Thanks for the review! We'll address your (much appreciated!) comments as part of our next planned update which will also include:
- update to next rev of schema mount (which gates this works) - more informational text / examples Thanks, Lou On 4/28/2017 4:23 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been selected to do a routing directorate aQA review of this draft. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model/ > > The QA review is described (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/rtg/wiki/RtgDirDocQa) > as: > > "The WG Draft Quality Assurance process exists to provide cross-WG and expert > review early in the IETF process after a WG has adopted a WG draft or while > the WG is deciding to adopt a draft. Since a WG adopts a draft as a good > starting point for the work, providing early excellent review of such drafts > allows for good technical discussion and the ability to enhance the WG draft > to solve identified issues. The earlier in the process that substantial > issues (technical or editorial) are resolved, the more quickly and smoothly a > WG draft is likely to proceed." > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-02.txt > Reviewer: John Scudder > Review Date: April 28, 2017 > > Summary: > > I found the document easy to follow, clear and almost painless to read, thank > you. > > Note that my level of Yang expertise is pretty low, so you should be looking > elsewhere for a critique of anything other than the grossest Yang-specific > aspects of the document. (I found the schema-mount example in section 3.2 > particularly opaque.) > > > Comments and Questions: > > 1. There's a significant amount of duplication of explanatory and background > text between this document and draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-01. In reading it, > I tried to consider whether it would be OK to cut out some of the text > explaining what an LNE is, but on the whole I think it's better left in -- > the document would have been more difficult to read without having that > context in-line. However, it does lead to the question, is there some good > reason the two documents are separate, instead of a single document? The > duplication between them suggests there's at least some motivation to > refactor them into one. (I realize there may be many reasons to keep them > separate, including "seriously, John? The cost/benefit just isn't there", but > I had to ask.) > > 2. The abstract is almost a copy of the abstract for > draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-01. Comments in #1 above notwithstanding, I do > think brevity is the soul of wit when it comes to an abstract, so I suggest > removing the LNE definition here, and just define the stuff *this* doc is > about. (Similar suggestion applies to the companion doc's abstract.) > > 3. It seems to me the "TBD" for network-instance-policy represents a > significant open issue and deserves to be included in your open issues list > (section 1.1). Other TBDs sprinkled throughout don't seem to rise to this > level, but of course do represent open issues. > > 4. Speaking of network instance policy, although since it's left TBD there's > not much to be said, the examples you give (RTs, RDs, VNIs, VPLS neighbors) > mostly don't seem like what I think of as "policy". I suppose it's one of the > most overloaded terms in our industry, so maybe someone else does think of it > that way, but this choice of terminology was a speed bump for my > understanding of the doc. > > 5. The example given in section 3.2 doesn't seem to follow the same pattern > as the one given in section 3. I'm too much of a Yang neophyte to know if > there might be some Yang feature in play that makes this make sense, but on > the face of it the example in section 3 seems to tell me I'm supposed to bind > a network-instance-name to a specific instance of an interface (so, > if:interfaces/if:interface), whereas what I see in 3.2 is a > network-instance-name at the if:interfaces level -- which doesn't make a lot > of intuitive sense, either. > > > Minor Issues and Nits: > > 6. I've edited various minor suggestions into a copy of > draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-02.txt and attached it, you can look at them using > your diff tool of choice. > > 7. This sentence isn't quite right: > > Network instance policies are used to control how NI information is > represented at the device level, VRF routing policies, and VRF/VSI > identifiers. > > Without knowing your intent I'm not able to offer you a rewrite. Possibly it > would be enough to reorder the items in your list, to put the big compound > one at the end, as in "Network instance policies are used to control VRF > routing policies, VRF/VSI identifiers, and how NI information is represented > at the device level"? > > 8. This sentence no verb: > > For layer 3, > this consistent with the routing-instance > definition in ietf-routing > > Again, without knowing your intent I can't offer a rewrite. Maybe the verb > "to be" is what you want? > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
