Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08
review-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08-genart-lc-kyzivat-2017-01-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-17
Requested 2017-01-03
Authors Alexander Clemm , Jan Medved , Robert Varga , Xufeng Liu , Hariharan Ananthakrishnan , Nitin Bahadur
I-D last updated 2017-01-13
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Tony Przygienda (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -08 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Carl Moberg (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -10 by Christian Hopps (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -10 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -10 by Michael Richardson (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2017-01-13
review-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08-genart-lc-kyzivat-2017-01-13-00
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 treat these comments just like any other 
last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at 
<​http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2017-01-13
IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-17
IESG Telechat date:

Summary:

This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the 
review.

Disclaimer:

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

Issues:

Major: 0
Minor: 2
Nits:  1

(1) Minor:

In sections 4 & 5, one of the termination-point-types is called 
"unnumbered", and contains an "unnumbered-id". But the value contained 
here is in fact a uint32 *index* value. This clearly *is* a number. So, 
ISTM that "unnumbered" is a misleading name for this element.

I gather it designates a termination point that is identified by this 
index rather than by a name or an ip-address. If so, a better name might 
be "index" or "indexed".

(2) Minor:

The examples in section 6.2 seem very helpful. But is it really 
necessary to fill in so much detail? The amount of detail seems to make 
it overly difficult to grasp the essential features. For instance, the 
contact and description information could be shortened.

(3) NIT:

In section 1, s/augments general network/augments the general network/