Subject: [CCAMP] YANG doctor review

From: Daniele Ceccarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:56:58 +0000

WG, 

We're requested the YANG doctor review of: 

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types/>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/

BR

Daniele

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 17:37:03 +0000

Having a look at layer1-types as one who is not a YANG doctor

- the module references
      "G.709/Y.1331, February 2016: Interfaces for the Optical
but I do not see this in the I-D references

- the module references
IEEE 802.3
which I do not see in the I-D references - and IEEE 802.3 is HUGE; I
think that you need to be more specific

and I would like more references e.g. for the error conditions ITU-T
....

as standard track ..
as informational...
is not something I have seen before and I am unclear what it is telling
me; in general, I think of any reference in a YANG module as Normative.

"generic topology module, ietf-te- topology, need to be augmented "
could benefit from a [reference]

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniele Ceccarelli"
<daniele.ceccarelli=[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:56 AM

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 12:29:59 +0000

Looking at layer0-types, as one who is not a YANG doctor, I see

Introduction makes it clear that this is for optical layer0; Abstract
misses the work 'optical' which I think that it should include.

Module references G.694.1 which I cannot see in the I-D references

Generally, the YANG reference clauses are usually matched by Normative,
not Informative, references

Where section 2.1 provides references for the types and groupings, then
I would see it as essential that those references appear as YANG
reference clauses for the types and groupings; most do not appear in the
YANG module e.g. for vendor identifier, wavelength assignment, layer0
grid type, term type, fec type etc etc

If you think that a reference is needed in section 2.1, and I agree with
you that they are, then logically the same references must appear in the
YANG module since the YANG module is a stand-alone piece of text that
will be divorced from the rest of the I-D/RFC

Tom Petch

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:56:57 +0000

Some more thoughts on layer0-types

The list in section 2.1 is quite long and I do not discern any
underlying logic as to what order they might be in in which case, I
suggest alphabetic within what kind of item they are, e.g.
2.1.1  typedef
2.1.2  identity
2.1.3. grouping

This would, for example, put the wson items together which at the moment
they are not.

In passing, the I-D is inconsistent about what it is defining.
"common data types and groupings"
"data nodes and other data model objects"
"common Layer 0 TE types"
"YANG reusable types and groupings"
"typedef, identity and grouping statements"

Perhaps 'common Layer 0 YANG typedefs, identities and groupings'.

The order in the YANG module should match that of section 2.1

Also, the list mixes Capitals and lower case; since the corresponding
YANG names are all lower case, then I think this section should be lower
case.

The hyphenation is consistent, which is good.

Tom Petch

---

From: Zhenghaomian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 01:13:51 +0000

Hi Mr. Petch, 

Thank you very much for the careful review and detailed comments. All the suggestions are noted and will be discussed with YANG doctors, after that we plan to address together with the comments from YANG doctor. 

Best wishes,
Haomian

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: CCAMP [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 tom petch
发送时间: 2019年11月20日 2:57
收件人: tom petch <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
主题: Re: [CCAMP] YANG doctor review

The list in section 2.1 is quite long and I do not discern any underlying logic as to what order they might be in in which case, I suggest alphabetic within what kind of item they are, e.g.
2.1.1  typedef
2.1.2  identity
2.1.3. grouping

This would, for example, put the wson items together which at the moment they are not.

Also, the list mixes Capitals and lower case; since the corresponding YANG names are all lower case, then I think this section should be lower case.

Tom Petch