Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-07
review-ietf-netmod-entity-07-yangdoctors-lc-krejci-2018-01-04-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netmod-entity |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
Deadline | 2018-01-15 | |
Requested | 2017-12-18 | |
Requested by | Lou Berger | |
Authors | Andy Bierman , Martin Björklund , Jie Dong , Dan Romascanu | |
I-D last updated | 2018-01-04 | |
Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -07
by Radek Krejčí
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -07 by Shawn M Emery (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Radek Krejčí |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-netmod-entity by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2018-01-04 |
review-ietf-netmod-entity-07-yangdoctors-lc-krejci-2018-01-04-00
The document itself and normative parts seem fine to me, the only issue I see is with the ietf-hardware-state module in non-normative appendix A. It seems to me that this temporary non-NMDA module does not conform to its purpose as described in RFC6087bis. According to guidelines, such a module is intended to provide state (config false) data in case the server does not implement NMDA (to bridge the time period until NMDA is implemented). So such a server is IMHO intended to implement both modules, foo and foo-state. The foo-state contains "the top-level config-false data nodes that would have been defined in a legacy YANG module" - so it's only the ro mirror of data nodes. But ietf-hardware-state contains notifications, which are not the data nodes as defined in RFC7950. I understand why the notifications were placed also into the ietf-hardware-state - the module's description states that "If a server that implements this module but doesn't support NMDA also supports configuration of hardware components, it SHOULD also implement the module 'ietf-hardware' ...", so it allows its standalone usage in case the server does not support hw configuration. But in such a case, the server can implement ietf-hardware with deviations on the config=true nodes. The same way it had to implement the legacy YANG module (before NMDA). So I think that the notifications should be removed from ietf-hardware-state and the module's description should change this way: OLD If a server that implements this module but doesn't support NMDA also supports configuration of hardware components, it SHOULD also implement the module 'ietf-hardware' in the configuration datastores. The corresponding state data is found in the '/hw-state:hardware' subtree. NEW If a server that implements this module but doesn't support NMDA, it MUST also implement the module 'ietf-hardware' in the configuration datastores. The corresponding state data is found in the '/hw-state:hardware' subtree.