Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-02-19
Requested 2018-02-05
Authors Deepak Kumar , Qin Wu , Zitao Wang
I-D last updated 2018-02-19
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -03 by Carl Moberg (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Sandra L. Murphy (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2018-02-19
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 

Document: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-05
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2018-02-19
IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-19
IESG Telechat date: ?


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


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


Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits:  5


This is probably just my lack of understanding of this technology, but 
in section 4.3 do MEPs only have identity in the context of a MA? That 
is what this model seems to show. I would expect that MEPs have 
existence independent of MAs, and hence would be modeled independently 
within a domain.

(1) NIT: General

Throughout the document I noticed a number of missing articles. I am not 
going to call these out because it would make this review very long and 
tedious. The IESG editor will presumably fix these.

(2) NIT: Abstract:

OAM should be expanded in the abstract. I realize it is expanded in the 
title, but the abstract is likely to be seen in contexts where the title 
isn't present.

(3) NIT: Section 6.2:

This section says:

    For Base Mode of operation we
    propose to use MEP-ID zero (0) as the default MEP-ID.

This language might make sense in an early draft, but isn't very 
suitable for a document on the verge of being an RFC. (Who is this being 
proposed to? Who will decide?)

(4) NIT: Section 7.1: Generic YANG Model extension for TRILL OAM

The following is not a complete sentence:

    In the RPC extension, the continuity-
    check and path-discovery RPC are extended with TRILL specific.

This needs to say "with TRILL specific *something*".

(5) NIT: Reported by IdNits tool:

The idnits tool reports a number issues and warnings. Some are spurious, 
but the following seem to require attention so that these warnings are 
no longer generated:

   Checking nits according to :

   ** The abstract seems to contain references
      ([I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores]), which it shouldn't.  Please
      replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in 

   Miscellaneous warnings:

   == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, 
even if
      it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.

      (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
      ID-Checklist requires).
   -- The document date (February 6, 2018) is 13 days in the past.  Is this

   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

   == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of

   == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of