Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-10
review-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-10-rtgdir-early-hopps-2017-07-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-07-07
Requested 2017-06-22
Requested by Susan Hares
Draft last updated 2017-07-08
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)
Comments
We've done one full round of QA reviews.  This round to make sure the latest model fits the latest in the NETMOD revised datastores structure.   Pelase note the base topology moidel may impact other modesl.
Assignment Reviewer Christian Hopps
State Completed
Review review-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-10-rtgdir-early-hopps-2017-07-08
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 16)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2017-07-08

Review
review-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-10-rtgdir-early-hopps-2017-07-08

Hello,

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology/

The purpose of this review is to determine it's compatibility with the new
revised datastore model guidelines.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-10.txt
Reviewer: Christian Hopps
Review Date: July 8, 2017
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

- This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
  considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.

Comments:

- This document adapts the suggested NMDA guidelines quite nicely.

- Perhaps an informative reference to the NMDA guidelines draft would be useful.

- Appendix A: Second Paragraph, last sentence:
  - I believe that it should say:

      "instead of ietf-network and ietf-network-topology"

    it currently says:

      "instead of ietf-network and ietf-network-state"

- IS-IS example model (sorry couldn't help myself :)

  - The example IS-IS l3-node-attributes augmentation isis-node-attributes
    includes an "iso-pseudonode-id". This isn't a node attribute, but rather a
    link one (it is repeated later under link attributes).

  - The isis-wg suggests to use "IS-IS" consistently, where possible, in
    documents rather than "isis" or "ISIS".