Early Review of draft-ietf-babel-yang-model-03
review-ietf-babel-yang-model-03-yangdoctors-early-krejci-2019-10-14-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-babel-yang-model |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
Deadline | 2019-10-15 | |
Requested | 2019-09-24 | |
Requested by | Donald E. Eastlake 3rd | |
Authors | Mahesh Jethanandani , Barbara Stark | |
I-D last updated | 2019-10-14 | |
Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Early review of -03
by Radek Krejčí
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Loganaden Velvindron (diff) Yangdoctors Last Call review of -09 by Radek Krejčí (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Ron Bonica (diff) Genart Last Call review of -09 by Stewart Bryant (diff) |
|
Comments |
Related draft draft-ietf-babel-information-model-09 is about to pass WG Last Call. |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Radek Krejčí |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-babel-yang-model by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/Z5AeTtyaxHkv-Zl5mK2vE7Iba5w | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 13) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2019-10-14 |
review-ietf-babel-yang-model-03-yangdoctors-early-krejci-2019-10-14-00
There is a single module in the draft: ietf-babel@2019-08-22.yang. There are 2 warnings reported by pyang 2.0.2, but both warnings seem to be false. ietf-babel@2019-08-22.yang:53: warning: RFC 8407: 3.1: The IETF Trust Copyright statement seems to be missing (see pyang --ietf-help for details). ietf-babel@2019-08-22.yang:208: warning: the module seems to use RFC 2119 keywords, but the required text from RFC 8174 is not found (see pyang --ietf-help for details). The draft is well written with an informative overview of the YANG module sections. Maybe some set of example configuration data (some Appendix) would be useful. Regarding the YANG module, I have just a few notes: - In multiple description texts, nodes are referenced by a path in format with dashes (e.g. babel-mac-default-apply). This format is confusing especially when some element in the path contains dash(es). Why the common format with slashes is not used? - Description and reference statements in containers and lists are placed as the last statement (after children nodes). To increase readability and allow people to decide if the content of the container/list is interesting for detailed view, please move the descriptions / references to the beginning. - grouping routes - just think if the grouping is reusable - in the module itself, the grouping is used just once and needless creation of groupings decrease module readability - routes/routes/received-metric - ... indicate a the route ... -> indicate the route ... - babel/interfaces/metric-algorithm - the text "The value MUST be one of those listed in 'metric-comp-algorithm'." in description just duplicates the type's information (identityref with metric-comp-algorithms base). - babel/interfaces/mac-key-sets - what does the babel-mac-key-sets in description refer to? - babel/interfaces/stats/reset - I'm confused, is it per-interface reset (as placed in the module) or system-wide interfaces stats reset (as information model defines it?). If it is the system-wide reset, why tha action cannot be placed in babel container? - babel/mac/test/output/resulting-hash - according to the content, it seems to me that the description is actually the missing description of the test action. - babel/dtls/test/output - seems to me more as a description of the action itself (where the description is missing)