Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04

Robert Sparks <> Tue, 01 March 2016 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C21C61B422A; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 13:51:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IAte_Lwg-AeG; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 13:51:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A3BB1B3C3B; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 13:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unnumerable.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u21LpngQ011723 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:51:50 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be unnumerable.local
From: Robert Sparks <>
Subject: Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04
To: General Area Review Team <>, "" <>,,
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:51:49 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 21:51:56 -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


Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 1Mar2016
IETF LC End Date: 9Mar2016
IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled

Summary: Ready with nits

1) I might be missing something obvious, but the introduction has two 
statements that don't seem aligned:

" Values of annotations are not limited to strings; any YANG built-in or 
derived type may be used for them"
"annotations are scalar values and cannot be further structured".

If I'm not missing something, that may be more of an open issue than a nit.

2) The shepherd writeup calls out the tension in figuring out whether to 
make this an extension or a new built-in statement. Please consider 
capturing the reasoning for the path you chose in the draft itself.