Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-15
review-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-15-genart-lc-even-2013-12-23-00

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 2013-12-23
Requested 2013-12-12
Authors Martin Björklund
I-D last updated 2013-12-23
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 15 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready
Completed 2013-12-23
review-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-15-genart-lc-even-2013-12-23-00
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”