Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-09
review-ietf-ospf-yang-09-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2017-12-06-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ospf-yang |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 29) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
| Deadline | 2017-12-14 | |
| Requested | 2017-11-08 | |
| Requested by | Acee Lindem | |
| Authors | Derek Yeung, Yingzhen Qu, Zhaohui Zhang, Ing-Wher Chen, Acee Lindem | |
| Draft last updated | 2017-12-06 | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -09 by Ladislav Lhotka
(diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -23 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -23 by Ravi Singh (diff) Genart Last Call review of -23 by Erik Kline (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -23 by Stefan Santesson (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Ladislav Lhotka |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-ospf-yang-09-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2017-12-06 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 09 (document currently at 29) | |
| Review result | Ready with Issues | |
| Review completed: | 2017-12-06 |
Review
review-ietf-ospf-yang-09-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2017-12-06
The data model defined in this document is a massive piece of work: it
consists of 11 YANG modules and defines around 1200 schema nodes. The
"ietf-ospf@2017-10-30" module is compatible with the NMDA architecture.
**** Comments
1. Unless there is a really compelling reason not to do so, the
"ietf-ospf" should declare YANG version 1.1. For one,
"ietf-routing" that is being augmented by "ietf-ospf" already
declares this version. Some of my suggestions below also assume
version 1.1.
2. The "ietf-ospf" can work only with the new NMDA-compatible
revisions of some modules, such as "ietf-interfaces" and
"ietf-routing". I understand it is not desirable to import such
modules by revision, but at least it should be mentioned in a
description attached to every such import.
3. Maybe the draft could mention that implementations should supply a
default routing domain as a system-controlled resource.
4. In "when" expressions, the module uses literal strings for
identities. This is known to be problematic, the XPath functions
derived-from() or derived-from-or-self() should be used instead.
5. Some enumerations, such as "packet-type" and "if-state-type"
define enum identifiers with uppercase letters and/or underscores,
for example "Database-Description" or "LONG_WAIT". RFC6087bis
recommends that only lowercase letters, numbers and dashes. I think
this convention should be observed despite the fact that the
current names are traditionally used in OSPF specs. The
"ietf-routing" module also defines "router-id" even though the
documents use "Router ID".
6. The types of LSA headers are modelled as integers. While OSPF gurus
probably know these numbers by heart, it is not very
reader-frienly. So at least some references to documents defining
these numbers should be provided, but my suggestion is to consider
implementing them with identities. It seems it might also be useful
to define some "abstract" identities for these types. For example,
if "opaque-lsa" is defined, then the definition of container
"opaque" could simply use
when "derived-from(../../header/type, 'ospf:opaque-lsa')";
instead of
when "../../header/type = 9 or "
+ "../../header/type = 10 or "
+ "../../header/type = 11";
7. The title of sec. 2.9 should be "OSPF Notifications" rather than
"OSPF notification".