Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-15

Request Review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 21)
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2022-08-02
Requested 2022-07-12
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Ana Minaburo , Laurent Toutain
I-D last updated 2022-08-03
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -04 by Carl Moberg (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -14 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -15 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -15 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 21)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2022-08-03
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-15. These comments were written
primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors
and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat
comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any
other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the
INT Directorate, see <>.

Based on my review, the document is Almost Ready.

I did not see any big problems from an INTAREA point of view but there are
just too many things that I didn't understand. I did not review the YANG
part in detail but did scan some of the text in the YANG.

The following are the somewhat more serious things I found:

Section 3.8.1: I don't understand this "(see chapter Section 3.7)". What
"chapter"? There does not seem to be a mention of "tv-struct" in Section
3.7 of this document...

Section 3.10.5, first bullet item: "must" -> "MUST"

Section 4, page 11: What does "in extenso" mean?

Section 4.1, page 11, first bullet item: "must" -> "MUST"

Globally replace all three occurrences of "proposes" with "specifies"

There are places where "forbidden" is used that should perhaps be changed
to "MUST NOT".

Section 5, page 40, for max-interleaved-frames: "must be active" -> "can be
active" or perhaps a more radical re-wording "but at most
max-interleaved-frames must be active at any time" -> "but more than
max-interleaved-frames MUST NOT be active at any time"

I really don't like the third bullet in Section 1, whose contents is just
an ellipses ("..."). So one of the three primary goals of the "document is
to formalize the description of the rules to offer:" ellipses? 😀 (I don't
mind the ellipses in the second bullet as that is just extending a list of
examples, although there should be a space between it and the preceding

Here are some more minor points:

The last sentence of Section 1 and the first sentence of Section 3 are
identical, except for a reference missing in Section 3, and they are quite
close together. I suggest simply deleting the first sentence of Section 3.

Section 3, page 3: I suggest expanding ID on first use. "ID" -> "ID
(identifier)" assuming that's what it means.

There are a number of typos / minor English problems as follows:

Section 3, page 3, "serveur" -> "server"

Section 3, page 4, "allows to select" - "allows selecting"

Section 3.2, page 3, replace the first sentence of Section 3.2 with the
Identifiers used in the SCHC YANG data model are from the identityref

   statement to ensure global uniqueness and easy augmentation if needed.

Section 3.2, page 5, "4 bytes-long" -> "4 bytes long"

Section 3.3, page 6, "bits derives" -> "bits derive"

Section 3.4, page 6, "giving in bits the size of the length" -> "giving the
length in bits"

Section 3.5, page 6, "an uint8" -> "uint8"

Section 3.7, page 7, "allows to specify" -> "can specify"

Section 3.10.2, page 8, "starting with the rule ID can be sent on" ->
"starting with the rule ID, can be sent in"

Section 3.10.2, page 8, first bullet item, last line, "in" -> "is"

Section 3.10.5, page 10, "handle correctly fragmentation" -> "handle
fragmentation correctly"

Section 3.10.5, page 10, "sould" -> "could"

Section 3.10.7, page 11, "integer" -> "integers"

Section 5, page 14: The RFC Editor's policy (with which I agree) is that
when there is a list of three or more items, there should be a comma after
the next to last item, before the "and". So "compression and fragmentation"
-> "compression, and fragmentation"
Section 5, page 38: As immediately above. "packet and its direction." ->
"packet, and its directions."

Section 6, page 43, next to last line, "conform" -> "conforming"

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA