Early Review of draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02
review-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02-rtgdir-early-chen-2018-08-01-00

Request Review of draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model
Requested rev. no specific revision
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-07-31
Requested 2018-07-16
Requested by Jeff Tantsura
Other Reviews
Review State Completed
Reviewer Mach Chen
Review review-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02-rtgdir-early-chen-2018-08-01
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/p7ZtOaY5_-Duy3JTnxlhwMWjhDs
Reviewed rev. 02
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2018-08-01
Review completed: 2018-08-01

Review
review-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02-rtgdir-early-chen-2018-08-01

Hello 

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. 
​ https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02 

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-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02 
 Reviewer: Mach Chen 
 Review Date: 01 August 2018 
 Intended Status: Standards Track 

Summary 

The draft  defines a YANG model for ARP configurations, which covers static ARP, ARP caching, proxy ARP and gratuitous ARP. The model is very short and the content is straightforward. It can be a reasonable start point for WG adoption call. 

General comments:

Although I am not a native English speaker, I also feel that the document needs some enhancements on its wording and grammar to make it more clean and readable. 

For example,  the following text needs some rewording or may be removed. 
Abstract:
"The data model performs as
   a guideline for configuring ARP capabilities on a system.  It is
   intended this model be used by service providers who manipulate
   devices from different vendors in a standard way."

Specific comments:

1. It's lack of the IANA section.

2. Section 3.1 and Section 3.3,  suggest to add relevant references to ARP caching and gratuitous ARP.

3.  import ietf-interfaces {
    prefix if;
    description
      "A Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
       compatible version of the ietf-interfaces module
       is required.";
  }
  import ietf-ip {
    prefix ip;
    description
      "A Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
       compatible version of the ietf-ip module is
       required.";
  }

Lack of the reference RFCs. 
And the descriptions seem not appropriate, some of other descriptions in this document have the similar issue, suggest to revise those descriptions. 

In addition, idnits tool shows:

== Missing Reference: 'RFC826' is mentioned on line 77, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC6536' is mentioned on line 583, but not defined

  ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341)

  == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis' is defined on line 606,
     but no explicit reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC0826' is defined on line 636, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text


Best regards,
Mach