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

[Amit Dass <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alia &  Sue,

Apologies, i was on a long flight. I have now uploaded the latest draft and managed to surpass the 5 author warnings.

Best regards,
Amit

From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 8:03 AM
To: Amit Dass <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alia Atlas; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: FW: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

Amit,

You should be able to upload the draft even with more than 5 authors.  There is just a warning that that is the case.
Please get the most recent up ASAP.

Regards,
Alia

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Amit Dass <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Alia,

Apologies for the delay. Needed to redo all again due to the laptop crashed. Updated the draft with the below comments. Couldn’t upload the same due to max 5 author limit kicking in.

Best regards,
Amit

From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 1:51 AM
To: Amit Dass <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

Hi Amit,

It has been three weeks.

Can you please get the update ASAP?  I need to get it reviewed and into IETF Last Call.
As you know, I am closing I2RS at IETF 101 - which means this draft needs to be on the March 8 telechat.
That means it really should be in IETF Last Call by February 16 - and I am traveling all next week
and busy.   I REALLY need it ASAP to review.

Regards,
Alia

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Amit Dass <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
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]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 10:55 AM
To: Amit Dass <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'Ebben Aries' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

Amit:iir


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]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 4:53 AM
To: Ebben Aries; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 9:33 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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/