The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached.

As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Document: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-06.txt
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 02/04/2019
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and clear to understand. The draft is quite complete.

The document defines a collection of common data types and groupings in YANG data modeling language. These derived common types and groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model Traffic Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities.

I found some minor nits and have some minor questions, it would be nice if they could be addressed.

Major issues: Not found

Minor issues: Not found

Nits/editorial comments:

- NBMA could be expanded in pag 14  NBMA (Non-broadcast multiple-access network) or maybe added into Acronyms and Abbreviations section. Same for SF (pag 32), SD (Pag 33), APS (pag 35) and PM (pag 46)

-In Pag. 43 identity oduc --> identity oducn ?

- In pag 45, default forward --> default "forward" ?

- Pag 58 ihe --> the  , ranage --> range



Questions:

- In te-admin-status (pag. 12) is the status "unknown" not applicable in here?

- In te-recovery-status (pag 17)  the status reversion-succeeded woud be not necessary in this case, cause we have recovery-succeeded status available?

- In pag 25, the lsp-state-type does not have a reference is that ok?, because it is used as base for other parameters.

- In general, I see some parameters that do not have reference specified, it is because the reference is already specified in the base, for example, pag 25, objective-function-type has reference, but then of-minimize-load-path, of-maximize-residual-bandwith do not have it. Is it because by default is the one of the base, in this case RFC4657? or it is because they are defined in this document? But for example lsp-protection-type is used as base and does not have reference added.

-In pag. 34, in the description for protection-external-commands, should include in the description the word "base", since it is used as base.

- In pag. 55 the description "RFC 3209 and others", should be added additional rfcs, instead of "others"?

Thanks for this document,

Ines.