Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-05

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Paul, thanks for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa


> On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art