Telechat Review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04
review-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04-genart-telechat-carpenter-2019-10-19-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2019-10-29 | |
| Requested | 2019-10-15 | |
| Authors | Andy Bierman , Martin Björklund , Kent Watsen | |
| I-D last updated | 2019-10-19 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Telechat review of -04
by Brian E. Carpenter
(diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Tal Mizrahi |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Brian E. Carpenter |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/xqaZ7n1j55Uwxsfu0t5O0ujjhPo | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 05) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2019-10-19 |
review-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04-genart-telechat-carpenter-2019-10-19-00
Gen-ART Last Call & telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2019-10-20 IETF LC End Date: TBD IESG Telechat date: 2019-10-31 Summary: Ready with nits -------- Comments: --------- This was accidentally put on the IESG agenda without an IETF Last Call, so this review serves both purposes. The draft seems very clear and I have no technical comments. Nits: ----- > Updates: 8340 (if approved) > Intended status: Standards Track RFC 8340 is a BCP, so can this really be Standards Track? Shouldn't it also be BCP, extending BCP 215? It's tricky, because it also effectively extends RFC 8040, which is Standards Track rather than BCP. Sadly it doesn't seem that a document can be both BCP and Standards Track. Also, this draft says: > The "yang-data" extension from [RFC8040] has been copied here, > renamed to "structure", and updated to be more flexible. That reads as if RFC 8040 is also updated, and it leaves the status of "yang-data" unclear. Is it now deprecated? Perhaps the sentence would be clearer like this: This document defines a new YANG extension statement called "structure", which is similar to but more flexible than the "yang-data" extension from [RFC8040].