Early Review of draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-01
|Requested revision||01 (document currently at 04)|
|Team||YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)|
|Requested by||Lenny Giuliano|
|I-D last updated||2021-04-11|
Yangdoctors Early review of -01
by Reshad Rahman
Recommend cluster review of draft-ietf-mboned-cbacc-02 and draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-01 as they are companion docs with shared concepts.
|Request||Early review on draft-ietf-mboned-dorms by YANG Doctors Assigned|
|Reviewed revision||01 (document currently at 04)|
|Result||On the Right Track|
YANG Doctor review of rev-01 by Reshad Rahman. Caveat: I won't pretend to fully understand the motivation behind DORMS. I've reviewed this mostly from a YANG perspective. Comments/questions: - OOC, why is DORMS limited to RESTCONF? I do understand why RESTCONF is appealing, but potential deployments might be using NETCONF, CORECONF or gNMI? - The data in ietf-dorms is said to be read-only but doesn't have "config false" - I'd add a "dorms" container at the top with "metadata" under "dorms". If other DORMS data needs to be added in the future, it would get added under "dorms". This would minimize top-level nodes as per RFC8407 section 4.10. - "mandatory" is not needed for list keys, it's actually ignored as mentioned in RFC7950 section section 7.8.2 - If a group requires a minimum number of udp-stream entries (e.g. 1), add a "min-elements" statement under "group". If not, leave as-is. - 7.1 Security considerations, looks like the read-only data is not deemed sensitive, please add a statement to that effect. Regarding NACM, consider a SHOULD instead of MAY? Regards, Reshad. - Even though the YANG model is not complex, adding an example always helps. Regards, Reshad.