Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10
review-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10-genart-lc-even-2013-04-28-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 16) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2013-05-03 | |
Requested | 2013-04-25 | |
Authors | Martin Björklund | |
I-D last updated | 2013-04-28 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -10
by Roni Even
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Roni Even (diff) Genart Last Call review of -15 by Roni Even (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Shawn M Emery (diff) Opsdir Early review of -13 by Susan Hares (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Roni Even |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 16) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2013-04-28 |
review-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10-genart-lc-even-2013-04-28-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2013–4–28 IETF LC End Date: 2013-5–3 IESG Telechat date: 2013-5-16 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC . Major issues: Minor issues: 1. I had some problem understanding the “location” leaf. Section 3.2 has it as a string and says that “ The device uses the location string to identify the physical or logical entity that the configuration applies to”. I am not sure how you identify physical location having no definition of the mapping. I saw the examples in Appendix E and it looked more to me as logical mapping but not physical since it attaches a name to something in the device but I am not clear how you know what it is physically in the device. If the name 0-n or n/m are real physical entities, I think that it should be specified some place. Nits/editorial comments: In the introduction section maybe add to the first sentence a reference to RFC6244 with some text. In section 2 are the” must” and “should” used as described in RFC2119, if yes need capital letters In section 3.1 “It is optional in the data model, but if the type represents a physical interface, it is mandatory”, suggest having RFC2119 language “It is OPTIONAL in the data model, but if the type represents a physical interface, it is MUST be specified”