Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-01
Requested revision 01 (document currently at 04)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2021-04-05
Requested 2021-03-08
Requested by Lenny Giuliano
Authors Jake Holland
Draft last updated 2021-04-11
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -01 by Reshad Rahman (diff)
Recommend cluster review of draft-ietf-mboned-cbacc-02 and draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-01 as they are companion docs with shared concepts.
Assignment Reviewer Reshad Rahman
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mboned-dorms-01-yangdoctors-early-rahman-2021-04-11
Posted at
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 04)
Result On the Right Track
Completed 2021-04-11
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.

- 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?

- Even though the YANG model is not complex, adding an example always helps.