Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-lmap-yang
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-03-08
Requested 2017-02-22
Authors Jürgen Schönwälder , Vaibhav Bajpai
I-D last updated 2017-03-07
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Paul E. Hoffman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Qin Wu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -05 by Martin Björklund (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Qin Wu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lmap-yang-11-opsdir-lc-wu-2017-03-07
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready
Completed 2017-03-07
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document defines a YANG data model for LMAP. It is well written and I
believe this document is ready for publication.

However I have a few comments which I like authors of this document can

1.Section 2, last paragraph corresponding to structure of the reporting data 

Why we use rpc instead of notification for data structure exchange between
measurement Agents and Collectors? Can we use notification for measurement
agent to report the data to the collectors?

2.Section 3, 1st paragraph said:


The LMAP information model [I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model] is

devided into six sections


I know six sections are defined in [I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model],but we
also have six bullet in this paragraph corresponding to these 6 sections in

So I would like to suggest to change “six sections”into “six aspects”.

3.Section 3, 1st paragraph, 4th bullet:

Is the first version of the LMAP data models referred to ietf-lmap-common at
2017-02-22.yang , ietf-lmap-control at 2017-02-22.yang

ietf-lmap-report at 2017-02-22.yang or these three LMAP data models
corresponding to revision 2017-02-22?

   Why limited to the first version of LMAP data models?

4.Section 6, 1st paragraph said:


   This document registers a URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688].

   Following the format in RFC 3688, the following registrations have

   been made.


I think this document needs to register 3 URIs rather than one URI?

5.Section 6,2nd paragraph said:


   This document registers a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names"

   registry [RFC6020].


I think this document needs to register three YANG modules rather than one YANG