Early Review of draft-ietf-tvr-schedule-yang-03
review-ietf-tvr-schedule-yang-03-yangdoctors-early-liu-2025-03-17-00

This is a review of the YANG modules in draft-ietf-tvr-schedule-yang-03.

1) Data examples
It would be beneficial to provide some examples of data instances so that the
readers can better understand how schedules are created and how the data is
structured. Also, Sec 3.12 in RFC 8407 requires that “Example modules MUST be
validated”.

2) The use of choice and case
When some data examples are provided the schedule structures can be better
shown. Even though the document texts describe the concepts of “single time
period” and “recurring time periods”, it is worth noting that the keywords
“period” and “recurrence” do not appear in the data instances, which may or may
not be intended.

3) Leaves in “attr-value” augmentations
Such leaves seem designed as “read-only”, but they all show up as “rw”. Is it
intended?

4) Consistencies with other RFCs, especially RFC 8345, RFC 8345 and their
augmentations. In many aspects, this document is already consistent with RFC
8345 and RFC 8346 in terminology and type usage. For example, the term “node”
is used, and the type of “node-id” is uri. However, the descriptions on “link”
are not consistent with RFC 8345. In RFC 8346, the equivalent concept of the
“link availability described from the viewpoint of a particular source node” is
“link termination-point” rather than “link.”

Thanks,
- Xufeng