Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rift-yang-15
review-ietf-rift-yang-15-opsdir-lc-chown-2024-07-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rift-yang
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2024-06-28
Requested 2024-06-07
Requested by Jim Guichard
Authors Zheng Zhang , Yuehua Wei , Shaowen Ma , Xufeng Liu , Bruno Rijsman
I-D last updated 2025-04-04 (Latest revision 2024-08-17)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -14 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -11 by Michal Vaško (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Tim Chown (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -13 by Shuping Peng (diff)
Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -03 by Michal Vaško (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Chown
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-rift-yang by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/Ddxo25lg88QIrDL53MxYszrJkzU
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 17)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-07-21
review-ietf-rift-yang-15-opsdir-lc-chown-2024-07-21-00
Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

The document defines a YANG data model for the configuration and management of
RIFT (routing in fat trees) protocol.

I am not a YANG expert, but the document appears to follow a similar style and
layout to other YANG data model documents I have read.  The associated security
text seems appropriate.

The nits are simply down to the large number of typos and mainly grammatical
errors in the text, many around use or non-use of plurals.  There is no
semantic ambiguity in any that I saw, but it would be good to correct these
rather than put that load on the RFC Editor.

Tim