Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-12

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Don Fedyk <[e-mail]>
Sent: 02 June 2021 19:25

Hi Tom

Could you point to addresses that are for IETF documentation (pointer please?)

<tp>
It depends on the addresses but they are all specified by RFC and are all in IANA - obvious once you know it!

RFC3849 IPv6
RFC5737 IPv4
RFC6676 multicast
RFC7042 Ethernet (plus 7042bis)
RFC5398 AS
RFC5612 Enterprise Number
Tom Petch


"Examples MUST use the addresses reserved for IETF documentation, not those allocated to other organisations."

Changing the addresses is a royal pain - I did not choose them but I have gotten them inconsistent on several occasions when changes were suggested.
They are in XML/JSON and PowerPoint/SVG sources which then get rolled up.
I'd like to get the right addresses once and for all.

Thanks
Don



-----Original Message-----
From: detnet <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of t petch
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 6:59 AM
To: Janos Farkas <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-12

On 27/05/2021 22:34, Janos Farkas wrote:
> All,
>
> This starts Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-detnet-yang-12
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-yang/
>
> The Working Group Last Call ends on June 11th.
>
> Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.


Looking at it from an editorial point of view, there are a significant number of defects which make it 'Not Ready'.

IANA Considerations MUST be present as per YANG Guidelines, RFC8407; no registration, no YANG module

Security Considerations MUST follow the template as per YANG Guidelines

Examples MUST use the addresses reserved for IETF documentation, not those allocated to other organisations.

Requirements Language is out of date - see RFC8174

YANG revision statement must refer to the title i.e. 'RFC XXXX; Determistic Networking (DetNet) YANG Model'

The Information Model is now an RFC

It is unfortunate that RFC9016 is Informationsl - it needs to be a Normative Reference IMO; your AD is probably familiar with this problem as it occurred as recently as last month and will doubtless occur many times again

import yang-types references an obsolete RFC

YANG prefix is cumbersome - I think 'detnet' quite long enough and likely too long - it is a shame that dtn is in use elsewhere

references in the YANG module, RFC, IEEE or ietf-draft etc.,  MUST appear in I-D References and there needs to be a good reason why they are not Normative; I rarely see such a reason.

six authors, one for the AD to reflect on

Acknowledgements
(perhaps not a coincidence:-)

I plan to look at the technical content of the YANG which may, or may not, throw up similar a number of considerations.

Tom Petch

>
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
>
> This is useful and important, even from authors.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> János (DetNet Co-Chair & doc Shepherd)
>
>

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet