Genart review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16

[italobusi]

Summary:

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication.

I recommend the Yang Doctors check the Yang module again. The last Yang Doctor check was done on the -04 version, this is the -16 version, and the Yang has changed considerably since then.

Nits/editorial comments:

Different parts of the text disagree on whether (1) this module is applicable to all layer 1 networks, but is primarily expected to be used for OTN layer 1 networks, or (2) is applicable to OTN layer networks. E.g. the two sentences of the Abstract seem to take opposite approaches, sec. 4.1 seems to be OTN-specific. Presumably the intention is agreed upon; the text needs to be made consistent with the intention.

3. Prefix in Data Node Names

   +-------------+---------------------------+----------------------+ | Prefix | YANG module | Reference | +-------------+---------------------------+----------------------+ | l1-types | ietf-layer1-types | This Document | +-------------+---------------------------+----------------------+ Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules

   RFC Editor Note: Please replace XXXX with the number assigned to the RFC once this draft becomes an RFC.

Should "This Document" be replaced by "RFC XXXX"?

6. YANG Code for Layer1 Types

   identity ODU0 { base odu-type; description "ODU0 type (1.24Gb/s).";

For "description" values that are not full sentences, there is inconsistency whether the value ends with a period or not. There is also inconsistency in values that are full sentences. (Perhaps this is a matter for the Editor.)

Appendix A. Examples of OTN Label Ranges

There are several instances of

             "//not-present tsg": "",

I suspect they are intended to be

             "// not-present tsg": "",

See; https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/5t9tOqyjIS7ZTpDoBkAQaP4RYQU/

[italobusi]

Comments addressed: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/PcC1dRL0TyVEAtvo_UrWP7zAYqM/