Why is this review on rt...@ietf.org and not on lsr@ietf.org? Tom Petch ________________________________________ From: rtgwg <rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com <julien.meu...@orange.com> Sent: 29 November 2023 16:03 To: rtg-...@ietf.org Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang....@ietf.org; rt...@ietf.org Subject: RtgDir Last Call Review: draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang
Hello, 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 https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-ospf-sr-yang-22 Reviewer: Julien Meuric Review Date: 2023-11-29 Intended Status: Standard Tracks *Summary:* This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. *Comments:* - The very first paragraph of the introduction/overview section summarizes the basis of YANG, XML, JSON, data models... I believe we are now far beyond those general considerations and we could skip that paragraph. - In the grouping "ospfv3-lan-adj-sid-sub-tlvs" (p23), the leaf "neighbor-router-id" uses type "dotted-quad". This is consistent with RFC 8666 which specifies the associated OSPFv3 TLV, but we had a discussion about the type for router-id in the TE YANG models. The current resolution on TEAS side will be to consider a union of dotted-quad and ipv6-address. I wonder how much RTGWG would be ready to consider a superset of the existing OSPFv3 TLVs. *Nits:* - Multiple times in description: s/SR specific/SR-specific/ - Multiple times in description: s/flag bits list/flag list/ - Multiple times in description: s/flags list/flag list/ - The description fields use a mix of "Adj sid", "adj sid", "Adj SID"... sometimes with hyphens (not to mention the full expansions). A single phrase should be chosen and used all along the module. - A few description starts with "The..." (e.g., in "ospfv2-extended-prefix-range-tlvs" on p 19, or v3 on p 22) while most of them don't. For consistency, it should be dropped from every brief description. - In the grouping "ospfv3-prefix-sid-sub-tlvs" (p 21 and all resulting pieces of tree): s/perfix-sid-sub-tlvs/prefix-sid-sub-tlvs/ - In the same grouping, the description of the container should be "Prefix SID sub-TLV *list*." (and "Prefix SID sub-TLV." reserved for the following list element). - In the container "ti-lfa" (p 25): s/Enables TI-LFA/Enable TI-LFA/ [Not wrong, but should be consistent with others.] - In the same container (p 26): "s/Topology Independent Loop Free Alternate/Topology-Independent Loop-Free Alternate/ - In section 3 (p 37): s/The YANG modules [...] define/The YANG module [...] defines/ - In the same section: s/in the modules/in the module/ - In the same section: s/Module ietf-ospf-sr/The module ietf-ospf-sr/ Thanks, Julien _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
