Early Review of draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-06
review-ietf-mboned-dorms-06-yangdoctors-early-rahman-2025-08-25-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mboned-dorms |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
| Deadline | 2025-08-22 | |
| Requested | 2025-08-05 | |
| Requested by | Lenny Giuliano | |
| Authors | Jake Holland , Kyle Rose , Max Franke | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-04-20 (Latest revision 2025-10-17) | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Early review of -01
by Reshad Rahman
(diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -06 by Reshad Rahman (diff) Genart Early review of -06 by Peter E. Yee (diff) Opsdir Early review of -07 by Nabeel Cocker (diff) Secdir Early review of -08 by Magnus Nyström |
|
| Comments |
Doc is nearing WGLC, looking for some reviews beforehand. NB, this did have an early Yang Drs review several years ago, and doc was updated with the resultant recommendations. Just looking for YD's to quickly review in case there are any new areas of emphasis that have arisen in the last 4 years or so. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Reshad Rahman |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-mboned-dorms by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/E3hVDeTL0NZohI2fPrg1ak8hEyk | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2025-08-25 |
review-ietf-mboned-dorms-06-yangdoctors-early-rahman-2025-08-25-00
Thanks for addressing my previous review comments at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/ogRyxz5jwOgHqYu2XsU4v0n66FE/ Issues In section 3.2, ietf-dorms@2025-07-06.yang doesn’t match revision 2021-07-08. Also Copyright should be 2025 (not 2019). I think leaf source-address should be of type ip-address-no-zone? Please address this error reported on data tracker: ietf-dorms@2021-07-08.yang:82: error: keyword "must" not in canonical order (see RFC 7950, Section 14) For the security section (4.1), please take a look at the new template in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/. For an example document which uses that template, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang/ Section 4.1 says NACM MAY be used. I think that should be SHOULD. We discussed that last time and I understand why you want to use MAY. My suggestion is to use SHOULD and explain when NACM is not appropriate. Without justification, security reviewers will flag this. In the reference section, RFC6020 should be a normative reference. I couldn’t find where this is specified but that’s what I have noticed in other YANG documents. Comments Section 4.1 mentions edit-config (which is a NETCONF RPC) but DORMS is RESTCONF-specific. This text comes from the template and is only an example, so this is probably ok. I would suggest an early review by SECDIR.