Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:50:07 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area 
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other 
last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at 
<​http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2017-01-13
IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-17
IESG Telechat date:

Summary:

This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the 
review.

Disclaimer:

I started this review without any knowledge of YANG modeling. So the 
sort of review I can do is superficial.

Issues:

Major: 0
Minor: 2
Nits:  1

(1) Minor:

In sections 4 & 5, one of the termination-point-types is called 
"unnumbered", and contains an "unnumbered-id". But the value contained 
here is in fact a uint32 *index* value. This clearly *is* a number. So, 
ISTM that "unnumbered" is a misleading name for this element.

I gather it designates a termination point that is identified by this 
index rather than by a name or an ip-address. If so, a better name might 
be "index" or "indexed".

(2) Minor:

The examples in section 6.2 seem very helpful. But is it really 
necessary to fill in so much detail? The amount of detail seems to make 
it overly difficult to grasp the essential features. For instance, the 
contact and description information could be shortened.

(3) NIT:

In section 1, s/augments general network/augments the general network/

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:03:57 +0200

Thanks for your review, Paul.

Authors, have you seen these comments? Didn’t see a response.

From my perspective "unnumbered" is still ok — we’ve traditionally called unnumbered interfaces such interfaces that have no address. But they typically would still have ifIndexes etc. But maybe some additional words to explain might be useful?

Jari

On 13 Jan 2017, at 21:50, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <​http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review.
> 
> Disclaimer:
> 
> I started this review without any knowledge of YANG modeling. So the sort of review I can do is superficial.
> 
> Issues:
> 
> Major: 0
> Minor: 2
> Nits:  1
> 
> (1) Minor:
> 
> In sections 4 & 5, one of the termination-point-types is called "unnumbered", and contains an "unnumbered-id". But the value contained here is in fact a uint32 *index* value. This clearly *is* a number. So, ISTM that "unnumbered" is a misleading name for this element.
> 
> I gather it designates a termination point that is identified by this index rather than by a name or an ip-address. If so, a better name might be "index" or "indexed".
> 
> (2) Minor:
> 
> The examples in section 6.2 seem very helpful. But is it really necessary to fill in so much detail? The amount of detail seems to make it overly difficult to grasp the essential features. For instance, the contact and description information could be shortened.
> 
> (3) NIT:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art