Document: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-flex-algo-yang Title: YANG Data Model for OSPF Application-Specific Link Attributes and Flexible Algorithm Reviewer: Adrian Farrel Review result: Has Issues
Hi, I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this Internet-Draft. The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that adequate operational considerations are covered. A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in IETF Specifications"_ can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/. While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback received. - Document: [Internet-Draft Name and Revision] - Reviewer: [Your Name] - Review Date: [Date] - Intended Status: [Proposed Status, e.g., Standards Track] --- ## Summary Choose one: - Ready: No issues found. This document is ready for publication. - Has Nits: This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. - Has Issues: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. - Has Major Issues: I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that the OPS ADs discuss these issues further with the authors. ## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis Provide an overview of the draft’s operational feasibility, readability, and alignment with RFC5706bis guidelines. Example: > This document defines a mechanism for [X]. While the technical approach is sound, Section [X] lacks clarity on how the mechanism would deploy. > The Operational Considerations section (Section X) should be expanded to address [Z]. Explicitly evaluate compliance with operational guidelines (optional but recommended): For example the check list: - Fault Management: Are failure detection/recovery mechanisms specified? - Configuration Management: Are configuration changes to enable/disable the feature clearly defined? - Performance Monitoring: Are metrics (e.g., latency, resource usage) clearly identified? | Review Item | RFC 5706 Considerations |------------------------------- |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Deployment | Does the document include a description of how this protocol or technology is going to be deployed and managed? | Installation and Initial Setup | Are configuration parameters clearly identified and do they have reasonable default values? | Migration Path | Is a path to migrate existing configuration clearly articualted? Are there any backward compatibility issues? | Requirements on Other Protocols| What other protocol operations are expected to be performed relative to the new protocol or technology? | Impact on Network Operation | Will the new protocol significantly increase traffic load on existing networks or affect the control plane? | Verifying Correct Operation | For example, how can one test end-to-end connectivity and throughput? For routing protocols, example as [RFC 6123 – Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6123.html) ## Major Issues List critical problems blocking publication (e.g., protocol flaws, missing operational safeguards, or lack of manageability considerations). Include section/paragraph references. - Example: > Section 4.2 describes [feature] but does not specify how operators can monitor its performance (RFC 5706 Section 3.6). This omission could lead to undiagnosed failures in production networks. - If none: > No major issues found. --- ## Minor Issues List non-blocking but important clarifications (e.g., ambiguous terminology or incomplete examples). - Example: > Section 2.1 uses "node" without defining its scope (physical/virtual). Add a reference to RFC 8345 for consistency. - If none: > No minor issues found. --- ## Nits Optional editorial suggestions (e.g., acronym expansions or grammar fixes). - Example: > Abstract: Expand "NFV" on first use. > Section 3.1: "it’s" -> "its". --- _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
