Telechat Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08
review-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08-genart-telechat-kyzivat-2018-03-31-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-04-03
Requested 2018-03-18
Authors Yan Zhuang , Danian Shi , Rong Gu , Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
I-D last updated 2018-03-31
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Reshad Rahman (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Carlos M. Martínez (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2018-03-31
review-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08-genart-telechat-kyzivat-2018-03-31-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area 
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document 
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more 
information, please see the FAQ at 
<​http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-07
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2018-03-31
IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-03
IESG Telechat date: 2018-04-05

Summary:

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should 
be fixed before publication.

Disclaimer:

I conducted this review without any knowledge of YANG modeling. So the 
sort of review I can do is superficial.

Issues:

Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits:  4

(1) NIT:

In my opinion many of the normative references aren't actually 
normative, and can/should be changed to informative references. In 
particular the following all seem likely candidates: RFC5246 (TLS), 
RFC6241 and RFC6242 (NETCONF), RFC8040 (RESTCONF), RFC8342 (NMDA), 
RFC8346. There may be others.

(2) NIT:

In the IANA Considerations section the formatting is hard to read. 
Distinct elements for the registry (e.g., "URI:" and "Registrant 
Contact:") are run together. For readability they should be on separate 
lines.

(3) NIT:

IdNits reports 3 errors and 7 warnings, regarding long lines, references 
that are missing, unused, obsolete, and a downref. Please fix the errors 
and review the warnings.

(4) NIT:

In the title of section 2:

s/Definitions an Acronyms/Definitions and Acronyms/