Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-07

["Zhuangyan (Yan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

Thank you very much for your review and comments.
Some responses below.

Best Regards,

Yan

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2018 1:20 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: General Area Review Team <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-07

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <​http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-07
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2018-03-31
IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-03
IESG Telechat date: 2018-04-05

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:  4

(1) NIT:

In my opinion many of the normative references aren't actually normative, and can/should be changed to informative references. In particular the following all seem likely candidates: RFC5246 (TLS),
RFC6241 and RFC6242 (NETCONF), RFC8040 (RESTCONF), RFC8342 (NMDA), RFC8346. There may be others.
[Yan] For RFC5246 (TLS), RFC6241, RFC6242 (NETCONF), RFC8040 (RESTCONF) and RFC8342 (NMDA), they are building blocks for YANG module usage and definition, hence referenced as normative.
For RFC8346, RFC8344, we agree that they would better be used as informative here and will move them to informative part.

(2) NIT:

In the IANA Considerations section the formatting is hard to read. 
Distinct elements for the registry (e.g., "URI:" and "Registrant
Contact:") are run together. For readability they should be on separate lines.
[Yan] fixed.

(3) NIT:

IdNits reports 3 errors and 7 warnings, regarding long lines, references that are missing, unused, obsolete, and a downref. Please fix the errors and review the warnings.
[Yan] I checked v-07 with idnits 2.15.01, there is no errors/warnings or nits found...can you direct me to the tool you use?

(4) NIT:

In the title of section 2:

s/Definitions an Acronyms/Definitions and Acronyms/
[Yan] fixed.