[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-05
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 19 February 2018 17:29 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3232C128C0A; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:29:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QokKk-07DHw4; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:29:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu (alum-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu [18.7.68.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D1E128959; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:29:12 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 1207440f-ab7ff70000000ab0-a4-5a8b09651f3f
Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by alum-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 40.16.02736.6690B8A5; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:29:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain (c-24-62-227-142.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.62.227.142]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w1JHT89K026914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:29:09 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
To: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model.all@ietf.org
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <3036371e-9307-d50d-9f99-e90474cc828d@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:29:08 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrIIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqJvG2R1lcP6ImcW5NU+YLa6++szi wOSxZMlPpgDGKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6Mg9P3MhYclK44P+knawPjE9EuRk4OCQETib6j6xm7 GLk4hAR2MEl0fzvFDuE8ZJKY/ukwG0gVm4CWxJxD/1m6GDk4hAViJE7f5gAxRQScJTYcSAGp YBbQl/j7ZDETSJhXwF5iz6w0kDCLgKrEknMTWUBsUYE0iVfPdjCD2LwCghInZz5hgWg1k5i3 +SEzhC0ucevJfCYIW16ieets5gmMfLOQtMxC0jILScssJC0LGFlWMcol5pTm6uYmZuYUpybr Ficn5uWlFuma6OVmluilppRuYoSEIP8Oxq71MocYBTgYlXh4d9zqihJiTSwrrsw9xCjJwaQk ylvxHyjEl5SfUpmRWJwRX1Sak1p8iFGCg1lJhNfnBlCONyWxsiq1KB8mJc3BoiTOq75E3U9I ID2xJDU7NbUgtQgmK8PBoSTBa8nRHSUkWJSanlqRlplTgpBm4uAEGc4DNDwIpIa3uCAxtzgz HSJ/itGSo+XikzZmjl2PXgLJGy9etzELseTl56VKifMKgjQIgDRklObBzYSllFeM4kAvCvM2 glTxANMR3NRXQAuZgBauFukEWViSiJCSamDsPz3HZAe7pcQmPt/F64yj32Stjvr4zHCJlZLm dfapUau4Zc16Dz5LuVvvcvG+7YTVU/663wkTn8Phx7QuIzL/3NP4ovg5hUkttQuCeddvf5Vw 4eD0Occ5OYskb5w54CFcJmoTtnFzmu6Erzk5IntutL5N1ord+FEy+rko4/+tFZndvN8UFA2U WIozEg21mIuKEwFLHSFIBAMAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/PnPiJ4mZnYU5NNGQs6H1TA9GVo0>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:29:14 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-05 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: 2018-02-19 IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-19 IESG Telechat date: ? Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Disclaimer: I conducted this review without any knowledge of YANG modeling. So the sort of review I can do is superficial. Issues: Major: 0 Minor: 0 Nits: 5 Other: This is probably just my lack of understanding of this technology, but in section 4.3 do MEPs only have identity in the context of a MA? That is what this model seems to show. I would expect that MEPs have existence independent of MAs, and hence would be modeled independently within a domain. (1) NIT: General Throughout the document I noticed a number of missing articles. I am not going to call these out because it would make this review very long and tedious. The IESG editor will presumably fix these. (2) NIT: Abstract: OAM should be expanded in the abstract. I realize it is expanded in the title, but the abstract is likely to be seen in contexts where the title isn't present. (3) NIT: Section 6.2: This section says: For Base Mode of operation we propose to use MEP-ID zero (0) as the default MEP-ID. This language might make sense in an early draft, but isn't very suitable for a document on the verge of being an RFC. (Who is this being proposed to? Who will decide?) (4) NIT: Section 7.1: Generic YANG Model extension for TRILL OAM The following is not a complete sentence: In the RPC extension, the continuity- check and path-discovery RPC are extended with TRILL specific. This needs to say "with TRILL specific *something*". (5) NIT: Reported by IdNits tool: The idnits tool reports a number issues and warnings. Some are spurious, but the following seem to require attention so that these warnings are no longer generated: Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (February 6, 2018) is 13 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02