Re: [i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

[Amit Dass <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue,

I expect to have some free time during this week.  Should be able to send the update by Monday next week.

Best regards,
Amit

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 10:55 AM
To: Amit Dass <[e-mail]>; 'Ebben Aries' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

Amit:

Do you think you and your co-authors can do this within a few days.   I would like to forward the publication request. 

Also, please remember to look at the latest Revised datastore draft and yang tree module drafts. 

Sue Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: Amit Dass [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 4:53 AM
To: Ebben Aries; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

Thanks Ebben for reviewing the draft. I will update the same based on below comments and feedback.


Best regards,
Amit

-----Original Message-----
From: Ebben Aries [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 9:33 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

Reviewer: Ebben Aries
Review result: On the Right Track

1 module in this draft:
- [e-mail]

No YANG validation errors or warnings (from pyang 1.7.3 and yanglint 0.14.59)

0 examples are provided in this draft (section 3.12 of
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15)

Module [e-mail]:
- yang-version statement missing - should be 1.1
- prefix 'iir' is recommended for this module, would 'rib' suffice better?
- import "ietf-inet-types" should reference RFC 6991 per (not as a comment)
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.7
- import "ietf-interfaces" should reference RFC 7223 per
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.7
- import "ietf-yang-types" should reference RFC 6991 per
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.7
- Since this module imports "ietf-interfaces", a normative references must be
  added per
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-3.9
- prefix "if" in the import "ietf-interfaces" can remove quotes to remain
  consistent with other imports
- Remove WG Chairs from contact information per
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
- Module description must contain most recent copyright notice per
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
- Module description should contain note to RFC Ed. and placeholder reference
  to RFC when assigned
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
- Add placeholder reference and note to RFC Ed. for RFC when assigned
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
- Security Considerations should be updated to reflect new template at
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines
- Section 1.2 should be replaced with reference to
  draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02 rather (as-is in other i2rs YANG
  drafts in progress) per
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-2.5.1
- This module contains '12' features.  While it is understood the purpose of
  these features in the module, take precaution as to complexity for clients
  if they need to understand >= quantity of features per module in use on a
  network-element.
- A few comments exist that are either unecessary or redundant.  Encode the
  comment intent rather in description fields if need be.
- Per NMDA, which datastores are targeted for the module?  Will all RPC
  operations be acting upon the dynamic/ephemeral datastore?  It is not clear
  to me if the intention is to be persistent or ephemeral

General comments/Nits:
- references to 'def' could be expanded out to 'definition'
- references to 'decap' could be expanded out to 'decapsulation' for
  readability (across definitions and descriptions)
- Follow consistent capitalization of 'RIB' throughout document text.  Mixed
  use of 'Rib' and 'rib' exists (Outside of YANG node lowercase definitions).
- Is it necessary to prefix all nodes under the nexthop container with
  "nexthop-"?
- Section 2.5 - route-add RPC - text mentions it is required that the nh-add
  RPC be called as a pre-requisite however if the nh already exists and the
  nexthop-id is known, this should not be necessary.  In addition, the text
  reads 'or return' which should rather be a result of querying the
  appropriate node in the data tree.
- In 'IANA Considerations' - s/This document requests to register/This
  document registers/