Subject: [i2rs] AD review of draft-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-06

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:28:59 -0500

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-06
before progressing it to IETF Last Call.

First, I would like to thank the authors and contributors of this document
for their work.

Regrettably, I will not progress this document with 9!!!! authors (one of
whose email already bounces).  Please select a few editors and update it.
I have scheduled this for the January 5, 2017 telechat - which means that
it must be ready for IETF Last Call no later than Dec 13 & preferrably
sooner, given the end-of-year vacations typical.

Please find my detailed review below.

Major:

a) Please clarify whether there are existing WG models that depend on this
module.

b) "augment /nd:networks/nd:network/nd:node/lnk:termination-point:

      +--rw l3-termination-point-attributes
         +--rw (termination-point-type)?
            +--:(ip)
            |  +--rw ip-address*      inet:ip-address
            +--:(unnumbered)
               +--rw unnumbered-id?   uint32 "
Is the unnumbered-id an ifIndex?  Can you declare it with that type?
Similarly in the model on p. 12:
"case unnumbered {

             leaf unnumbered-id {
               type uint32;
               description
                 "Unnumbered interface identifier";
             }"
why isn't this an ifIndex?!?

Minor:

1) Intro: Please clean up paragraphs 2&3.   When this is an RFC, it wont
matter what the logic was for pulling the L3 topology model out. That can
go.  Similarly, there are existing WG drafts for IS-IS and OSPF models.
Rather than "expecting", how about a reference?  Are there such models?

2) Intro:  Do we really need the paragraph on why to choose YANG?

3)Intro:  How about an informative reference to the TED topology model?

4) Sec 2: Datastore definition -  please add a pointer to the NetMod RFC
that defines it or at least indicate that this isn't a new definition &
where it comes from.

5) On p. 9:  " typedef link-flag-type {

       type identityref {
         base "flag-identity";
       }
       description "Prefix flag attributes";  "
Shouldn't the description be "Link flag attributes"?

6)  Section 6 with the non-normative examples should be an Appendix.

7)  Contributors should be listed with at most address information (which
usually includes affiliation) - but such affiliation should be
correct!(e.g. Ken Gray) or just by name.  We are all participating as
individuals - not company representatives.

Regards,
Alia

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:30:20 -0500

(correcting typo  to send to draft authors)