Subject: [CCAMP] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11

From: Radek Krejčí via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 06:33:27 -0700

Reviewer: Radek Krejčí
Review result: Ready with Issues

This is my yang doctor review of draft draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-11 with
the ietf-otn-topology@2020-09-21 YANG module.

Despite the size of the module, its structure is very simple repeatedly
following a pattern of augmenting ietf-te-topology by groupings defined in
ietf-layer1-types module.

Datatracker's validation with yanglint reports a number of warnings, but they
are false positive (fixed in yanglint 1.9.16 - the fixed version still reports
warnings, but they are all from the imported ietf-layer1-type module).

My only note to the module itself is about the two defined groupings - I'm not
sure about the reusability of the groupings in other modules. If the
reusability is not the concern, I don't see any reason to define them.

Regarding the draft, as a reader, I would appreciate a more targeted
description in section 3. Instead of just dumping the tree diagram in section
3.2, it would be useful to split it into several areas with some brief
descriptions and examples.

The list of paths is introduced in Section 6 as "the subtrees and data nodes
and their sensitivity/vulnerability", but I don't see explained/described the
mentioned sensitivity/vulnerability of those paths.

The prefix of the YANG module (also referred to in Section 7 ) - 'otntopo' -
seems inconsistent to me. The relevant ietf-te-topology has 'tet' (so I would
expect 'otnt' here), on the other hand, the ietf-otn-tunnel has 'otn-tunnel'
prefix (then I would expect 'otn-topo' prefix here). The 'otntopo' seems to
introduce just another format. As a reader/user, I would prefer if the modules
from a common group could use some common and obvious rules for prefixes.