Early Review of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10
review-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10-yangdoctors-early-krejci-2018-10-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10
Requested rev. 10 (document currently at 11)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2018-10-30
Requested 2018-10-16
Requested by Mehmet Ersue
Draft last updated 2018-10-24
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -07 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Samuel Weiler (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -10 by Radek Krejčí (diff)
Comments
No YANG Doctors review has been done yet.
Assignment Reviewer Radek Krejčí
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10-yangdoctors-early-krejci-2018-10-24
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2018-10-24

Review
review-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10-yangdoctors-early-krejci-2018-10-24

This is my YANG-doctor review of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10. I have reviewed it mainly from the YANG perspective, since I'm not familiar with IEEE 1588.

The draft as well as the YANG module ietf-ptp@2018-09-10 are in a good shape and ready to publish. I have only 2, say, editorial notes.

1) email of Rodney Cummings in the module's contact statement misses
(in contrast to emails of other authors) starting ('<') and ending ('>') tags.

2) I don't see any reason for the following paragraph in the appendix A3:

   Under the assumptions of section A.1, the first IEEE 1588 YANG
   module prefix can be the same as the last IETF 1588 YANG module
   prefix (i.e. "ptp"), since the nodes within both YANG modules are
   compatible.

Since the module's prefix is used only locally, it may change when
the module is updated (RFC 7950, sec. 11). So the mentioned paragraph
seems pointless to me (and therefore confusing for readers).