Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09
review-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09-genart-lc-yee-2013-05-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-05-03
Requested 2013-05-02
Authors Martin Björklund
Draft last updated 2013-05-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -11 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Peter E. Yee
State Completed
Review review-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09-genart-lc-yee-2013-05-04
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 14)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2013-05-04
review-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09-genart-lc-yee-2013-05-04-00
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting
a new version of the draft.


This draft has not been updated since my Last Call review, so the
information below remains unchanged.

Document: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: May-03-2013
IETF LC End Date: May-03-2013
IESG Telechat date: May-16-2013

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards Track
RFC, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. [Ready with
nits]

The abstract says it pretty well: This document defines a YANG data model
for management of IP implementations.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits:

Page 7, bottom: The code copyright date says 2012.  Update it to 2013.

Page 10, in leaf phys-address, the description has an incorrect spelling of
"neighbor".

General: where a description of phys-address is given, in both cases it
says
"The physical level address...".  It might be more correct to state "The
link layer address..." for most but not all cases.

That's it.  Everything appears consistent within the limits of my
understanding of YANG.

		-Peter Yee