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 rev. 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
Draft 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 Emery (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -13 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Review review-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-15-genart-lc-even-2013-12-23
Reviewed rev. 15 (document currently at 16)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-12-23

Review
review-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-15-genart-lc-even-2013-12-23

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”