Early Review of draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-29
review-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-29-yangdoctors-early-vasko-2026-04-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 31)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2026-04-21
Requested 2026-04-07
Requested by Mahesh Jethanandani
Authors Kent Watsen , Michael Richardson , Esko Dijk , Toerless Eckert , Qiufang Ma
I-D last updated 2026-06-04 (Latest revision 2026-05-14)
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -29 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -29 by Michal Vaško (diff)
Iotdir Early review of -29 by Thomas Fossati (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -30 by Behcet Sarikaya (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -31 by Geoff Huston
Assignment Reviewer Michal Vaško
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis by YANG Doctors Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/dCFyvuk9FimmbFFB3QlRf-IpNtc
Reviewed revision 29 (document currently at 31)
Result Ready
Completed 2026-04-08
review-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-29-yangdoctors-early-vasko-2026-04-08-00
There are 2 YANG modules in the reviewed document: ietf-voucher and
ietf-voucher-request. I am not an expert on the topic of the document but the
YANG modules are fairly short and each node well-documented so I believe users
of the modules will have no issues.

There are a few counterintuitive design decisions such as naming the structures
in both modules 'voucher' or the 'voucher-request' grouping using the
'voucher-artifact' grouping with refines that significantly affect node
behavior. However, based on the text in the document, great care was taken and
major difficulties were encountered when designing the YANG modules so I assume
all these details are intentional with good reasons behind them.

Lastly, the validation errors generated by yanglint can be ignored and are
caused by a bug that has been fixed.