Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10
review-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10-rtgdir-telechat-bocci-2018-06-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Telechat Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-07-04
Requested 2018-06-20
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Martin Björklund , Ladislav Lhotka
Draft last updated 2018-06-29
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -10 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Matthew Bocci
State Completed
Review review-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10-rtgdir-telechat-bocci-2018-06-29
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 12)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2018-06-29
review-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10-rtgdir-telechat-bocci-2018-06-29-00
Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10.txt
Reviewer: Matthew Bocci
Review Date: 11 June 2018
IETF LC End Date: unknown
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
considered prior to publication.

Comments:

The draft is clearly written and easy to understand. I have no significant
concerns although there are a few minor editorial nits that I think should be
addressed.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.

Nits:

I found the references to the mechanism as simply "schema mount" made the
document harder to parse than it should be. For example "The basic idea of
schema mount is to label...". It would be more readable to always refer to the
mechanism as "a schema mount" or "the schema mount" as appropriate.

There are a few other places where the indefinite article is missing e.g. the
definitions in section 2.1 would be more readable if they started with 'a',
thus: "schema: a collection of schema trees..."

Section 2.1 Glossary of new terms
"- Schema: collection of schema trees with a common root"
I am not sure that you can really say that 'schema' is a new term. Maybe this
could be rephrased to say "the term schema is used in this document to refer
to..."