I reviewed the latest version 5 and the ideas behind the concept of the draft makes sense, however some additional recommendations on clarity of the draft I believe is necessary before publication.

This draft was presented at IETF 117 last summer by Mohamed Boucadair and adopted on November 6th 2023.  As the draft was adopted fairly recently, my goal is to catch any issues with the draft before publication.  

The 3 additional drafts below were reviewed together as requested.

! Draft being reviewed
draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-05
 
! Additional drafts reviewed 
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-06
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-05
draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue-06

I ran IDNITS against all 4 drafts and result was “no issues found here”

All 4 drafts were adopted on November 6th 2023. 


Routing Area Directorate Review request Main Draft
draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-05



Major Issues:
None

Minor Issues:
I would recommend showing how all 4 drafts work together in each of the 4 drafts as they all work together to provide the overall AC solution. 

draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue-06
draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-05
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-06
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-05

Is there any way to merge some of these drafts together or do they all have to be separate. It makes it difficult for the reader to follow the solution. 


What does “ntw” mean please expand.

This draft has routing section 4.6 for bgp, ospf, isis, rip, vrrp (static is missing)

Could the routing protocols section just refer to L3NM L3SM RFC for any details on the routing protocol necessary or point to the LXNM Glue draft that glues 4 NM & SM modules together.   I think that would simplify the draft so not providing redundant yang data models that has already been documented in other RFCs. 

Section 4.4 L2 connection & Section 4.5 IP connection and then 4.6 goes into detail about each routing protocol however there is no corresponding detailed section for L2 services as there is for L3 services on the AC.

Nits:
None

! Additional drafts reviewed 
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-06

Major Issues:
None

Minor Issues:

This draft has routing section 4.2.5.3 for static, bgp, ospf, isis, rip, vrrp

Could the routing protocols section just refer to L3NM L3SM RFC for any details on the routing protocol necessary or point to the LXNM Glue draft that glues 4 NM & SM modules together.   I think that would simplify the draft so not providing redundant yang data models that has already been documented in other RFCs. 

I would recommend showing how all 4 drafts work together in each of the 4 drafts as they all work together to provide the overall AC solution. 

draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue-06
draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-05
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-06
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-05

Is there any way to merge some of these drafts together or do they all have to be separate. It makes it difficult for the reader to follow the solution. 


Nits:
Remove all the bold of lines within the draft.  AFAIK it makes it difficult for the user to read.   



! Additional drafts reviewed 
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-05

Major Issues:
None

Minor Issues:

Is the goal of this draft to take items that are common between all ACs for the L2NM & L2SM modules.  Why not make this part of one of the other drafts like the ac-glue or even the ACAAS draft.  


I would recommend showing how all 4 drafts work together in each of the 4 drafts as they all work together to provide the overall AC solution. 

draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue-06
draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-05
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-06
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-05

Is there any way to merge some of these drafts together or do they all have to be separate. It makes it difficult for the reader to follow the solution. 


Nits:
None