Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04
review-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04-genart-lc-sparks-2016-03-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-03-09
Requested 2016-02-25
Authors Ladislav Lhotka
I-D last updated 2016-03-01
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Bert Wijnen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2016-03-01
review-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04-genart-lc-sparks-2016-03-01-00
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 1Mar2016
IETF LC End Date: 9Mar2016
IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled

Summary: Ready with nits



1) I might be missing something obvious, but the introduction has two 


statements that don't seem aligned:






" Values of annotations are not limited to strings; any YANG built-in or 


derived type may be used for them"



and
"annotations are scalar values and cannot be further structured".

If I'm not missing something, that may be more of an open issue than a nit.



2) The shepherd writeup calls out the tension in figuring out whether to 


make this an extension or a new built-in statement. Please consider 


capturing the reasoning for the path you chose in the draft itself.