Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-03
review-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-03-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2025-01-21-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-03 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 03 (document currently at 10) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
| Deadline | 2025-02-06 | |
| Requested | 2025-01-16 | |
| Requested by | James Cumming | |
| Authors | Qiufang Ma , Qin Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Daniel King | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-03-10 (Latest revision 2025-08-07) | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Early review of -02
by Reshad Rahman
(diff)
Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -03 by Reshad Rahman (diff) Genart IETF Last Call review of -08 by Peter E. Yee (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Per Andersson (diff) Rtgdir Telechat review of -08 by Acee Lindem (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Reshad Rahman |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/1SFuRxlgz8yMSpjGrvgTIvJ0YcM | |
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 10) | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2025-01-21 |
review-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-03-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2025-01-21-00
Thanks for addressing my review comments which were discussed at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/AO7wvBa0gJbC-Egt_UuZHKCML70 I believe there are a couple of issues remaining, however it should be easy to address/close them. Issues ====== For "leaf interval", the description mentions a default value but there is no default statement. I believe we need more mandatory statements, or default statement if appropriate, otherwise the behaviour is unknown. For example: - In "container recurrence-first", should "start-time-utc" and "duration" be mandatory? - In "choice period-type", if no choice is made does that mean there is no end to the period? If so, please add that to the description. If not, add a mandatory statement. Nit: the term "recurrence rule" is used a lot in the document, but it is not explained anywhere. In the terminology section, add a reference to 3.8.5.3 of RFC5545? Regards, Reshad.