Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2020-06-26
Requested 2020-06-11
Requested by Martin Vigoureux
Authors Jie Dong, Xiugang Wei, Qin Wu, Mohamed Boucadair, Anders Liu
Draft last updated 2020-08-03
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -04 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Stig Venaas (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -13 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -14 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stig Venaas 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13-rtgdir-lc-venaas-2020-08-03
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 13 (document currently at 18)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2020-06-24



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG
review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is
to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about
the Routing Directorate, please see

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs,
it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other
IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them
through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13.txt
Reviewer: Stig Venaas
Review Date: 2020-06-24
IETF LC End Date: 2020-06-25
Intended Status: Standards Track

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.

The document is well written and easy to read. I only found some minor
nits that should be taken care of.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.


The idnits tool found some nits; regarding references in particular.

There may be some minor model issues, tracker says: Yang Validation 9
errors, 2 warnings.

The abstract is rather short, I think it would be worth going into a
little more detail.

In Introduction “A sample example” should maybe just be “An example”?

For grouping l2-network-type, shouldn’t “indicates” be capitalized?
      presence "indicates L2 Network";

For leaf maximum-frame-size, missing space before PPP
      if L2 frame is other type (e.g.,PPP), the L2

For l2-termination-point-type, leaf tag, should say “is supported”
      "Defines whether lag is support or not.";

In the security considerations, should be “defines”
      The Layer 2 topology module define

In Appendix A, should say “represents”.
      implementations, a corresponding companion module is defined that
      represent the operational state of layer 2 network topologies.  The