I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-opsawg—l2nm-01 Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu Review Date: Dec 18, 2020 IETF LC End Date: N/A (early review) Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: There are some issues that should be at least considered prior to publication. Comments: Thanks for working on this draft. This is a big piece of work, and there are lots of details to be studied/verified. As an early review, I think the draft is heading to the right direction. I’ll continue to follow this draft (didn't have enough time to review the QoS part) and may provide more comments later. Regarding some of the open questions, here are my thoughts: - Per RFC4448, control-word is missing The function of control word is to sequence individual frames. RFC 4448 was defined more than 10 years ago, and most of today’s applications can support packets delivered out of order. I did a quick research, and it seems that most vendors still support the configuration of control word. But I’m wondering whether this should be in device model? If the authors want to include it in this network model, I’d suggest to add it with a default value. - Missing the option to re-write dot1q information received in access. - Should we see this as network level parameter or device level configuration parameters? This leads to a more general question. What’s the line between a network model and device models? It’s up to the authors and the WG to decide what to include in the model. Issues: Please add examples in appendix. What’s the relationship between vpn-svc-type and the type under signaling-options of vpn-node? They both are identityref of “vpn-common:vpn-signaling-type”. What will happen if they’re different values? Same for “container connection”, there is a “encapsulation-type”, then “l2-access-type” under “container dot1q-interface”, the relationship between these two types needs to be clarified. Section 4.2, the relation with network topology is a bit confusing. I know there is an expired draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ogondio-opsawg-uni-topology-01, not sure whether it’s about this draft. So some clarifications will help. The following is actually imported from vpn-common module, but I see the authors are overlapping. If the admin-status is meant to be the enable and disable the VPN service since it is “rw”, I’d suggest to change the name to admin-state instead of status, this is confusing with the real status, and it’s typically “ro”. Also the “last-updated” may not be necessary for admin-status. uses vpn-common:service-status; +--rw status | +--rw admin-status | | +--rw status? identityref | | +--rw last-updated? yang:date-and-time | +--ro oper-status | +--ro status? identityref | +--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time I feel the text/description in this draft could be improved and cleaned up, but I’m not a native speaker. Maybe RFC editor will help with this? There are names started with capital letter, but it’s not consistent in the draft, for example: service provider. Nits for your consideration: There are names started with capital letter, but it’s not consistent in the draft, for example: service provider. For IETF models, list name is normally plural. list vpn-node { key "vpn-node-id ne-id"; leaf vpn-node-id { type vpn-common:vpn-id; description <—— Please add a description here ""; } Typically list names are plural, so I’d suggest change “list vpn-service” to “list vpn-services”, same for “vpn-node”. “leaf Interface-mtu” should be “leaf interface-mtu” Typo in section 3.3.3.2.2, “This container is usedd to indicate”. The following list can be changed to a leaf-list: list peer-list { key "peer-ip"; leaf peer-ip { type inet:ip-address; description "Peer IP"; } description "List for peer IP"; } An extra “will” at section 4.3: Creating services in the l2vpn-ntw module will will lead at some