Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-23
review-ietf-ospf-yang-23-genart-lc-kline-2019-07-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 26)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-07-17
Requested 2019-07-02
Draft last updated 2019-07-17
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Last Call review of -09 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -23 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -23 by Ravi Singh (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -23 by Erik Kline (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -23 by Stefan Santesson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Erik Kline
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-yang-23-genart-lc-kline-2019-07-17
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fCMqUgA_LnMmzn27DJmhz2thhKY
Reviewed rev. 23 (document currently at 26)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-07-17

Review
review-ietf-ospf-yang-23-genart-lc-kline-2019-07-17

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-??
Reviewer: Erik Kline
Review Date: 2019-07-17
IETF LC End Date: 2019-07-17
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

I feel like the "version" text in 2.3 was confusing.  The first thing I did was glance back up the overview where I (a) didn't see "version" mentioned and (b) initially thought that "af" was maybe a proxy for "version".

But then later on it seems that "version" is only a mandatory property of the LSA.

I'm not sure that I have concretely useful suggestions for improving this text, and in fact it might well be that for expected readers of the document this is in fact a non-issue.  Just thought I'd relay my experience.

Nits/editorial comments:

Page 25: NMDA RFC is 8342, not 8242.

Page 81: references draft-ietf-bdf-yang-xx.txt. This is referenced
elsewhere in the doc (correctly), so I think just remove the -xx may
be fine?