Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-03
review-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-03-yangdoctors-lc-aries-2018-02-22-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-02 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | 02 (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
Deadline | 2018-02-22 | |
Requested | 2018-02-01 | |
Requested by | Mahesh Jethanandani | |
Authors | Martin Björklund , Jürgen Schönwälder , Philip A. Shafer , Kent Watsen , Robert Wilton | |
I-D last updated | 2018-02-22 | |
Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -03
by Ebben Aries
(diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -06 by Lou Berger (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Christian Huitema (diff) Genart Last Call review of -06 by Christer Holmberg (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Ebben Aries |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2018-02-22 |
review-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-03-yangdoctors-lc-aries-2018-02-22-00
1 module in this draft: - ietf-netconf-nmda@2018-02-05.yang YANG validation errors or warnings (from pyang 1.7.3 and yanglint 0.14.69) - ietf-netconf-nmda@2018-02-05.yang:171: warning: RFC 6087: 4.10,4.12: statement "enum" should have a "description" substatement (From pyang 1.7.3) 0 examples are provided in this draft (section 3.12 of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18) Module ietf-netconf-nmda@2018-02-05.yang: - Note: For the following imports, there are no references to the supporting documents as suggested in rfc6087bis however this item is currently under discussion on both usefulness/possible formatting - import "ietf-yang-types" should reference RFC 6991 per (not as a comment) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18#section-4.7 - import "ietf-inet-types" should reference RFC 6991 per (not as a comment) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18#section-4.7 - import "ietf-datastores" should reference I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores per https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18#section-4.7 - import "ietf-origin" should reference I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores per https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18#section-4.7 - import "ietf-netconf" should reference RFC 6241 per https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18#section-4.7 - import "ietf-netconf-with-defaults" should reference RFC 6243 per https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18#section-4.7 - Module description, revision and feature definition should contain note to RFC Ed. to change placeholder reference to RFC when assigned https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18#appendix-C - Security Considerations looks good and is adjusted to account for NETCONF only as well as addressing the additional RPCs introduced - L82: suggested replacement of text: s/, i.e., the filter criteria are logically ANDed/. Multiple filters are processed as a logical AND operation/ - L127: suggested replacement of text: s/then the get-data/the get-data/ General comments/nits on draft text: - As mentioned above, there are 0 examples in this draft. There should be XML RPC examples of the 2 newly defined RPCs as well as usage examples of the augments of RFC6241 RPCs - :with-origin urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:with-origin:1.0 Wouldn't it make more sense to have this URN defined in I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores rather? In addition, should this capability and feature be rather defined as 'origin' in the 'ietf-origin' module? As defined today, this feature is used as a clause for 'origin-filter' as well as 'with-origin' inputs to get-data however these inputs appear to be mutually exclusive. IMHO, this should be detached from this specific draft which focuses on NETCONF specific base extensions for datastores as the returning and filtering of origin metadata can be transport independent. - L308: suggested replacement of text: s/parameter is optional to support/parameter is optional and dependant off of the servers support for the 'origin' feature/ (dependant off the previous comment) - L320: "ietf-netconf-nmda" (see Section 4). - This should be an actual reference as in line #306 - L345: "default-operation" parameter of the <edit-config> operation - This should at a bare minimum call reference to the appropriate section in RFC6241 - To the previous point, since there is a large amount of reference and comparison to RFC6241 definitions, any references should be tagged appropriately