Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-04
review-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-02-yangdoctors-early-krejci-2017-04-25-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2017-04-30
Requested 2017-03-31
Requested by Jeff Tantsura
Authors Xufeng Liu , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Christian Hopps , Lou Berger
I-D last updated 2017-05-24
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -04 by Radek Krejčí (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -14 by Stefan Winter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Radek Krejčí
State Completed
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-02-yangdoctors-early-krejci-2017-04-25
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2017-05-24
review-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-02-yangdoctors-early-krejci-2017-04-25-01
I have reviewed changes made to draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types between revision
02 and 04 (04 was published just a week after 03). The main change is splitting
the module into 2 modules: ietf-routing-types and iana-routing-types.

iana-routing-types:
- since it is IANA-maintained module, IANA should be the 'organization' and
also the 'contact' value should be changed accordingly (see iana-if-type)

ietf-routing-types:
- follow the contact template available RFC 6087 Appendix B (or RFC6087bis,
Appendix C)

draft text:
- if iana-routing-types is supposed to be IANA-maintained module, isn't IANA
also supposed to be XML registrant contact (IANA Considerations section)? - my
fault from previous review - since the module imports ietf-yang-types, it MUST
contain reference to its RFC, which is RFC 6991 (not RFC 6021 as I wrote in my
review). So move RFC 6991 reference from Informative references section into
Normative references where it will replace reference to RFC 6021.

Radek