[lp-wan] AD review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-12

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Ana and Laurent,

Please find below a list of points raised during my AD review. I would appreciate a reply on all of them; the reply could vary from “we ignore because of foo” to “this will be fixed in -13”.

I have also attached your I-D formatted as a MS-Word document to allow you to chase all typos and grammar errors.

Thanks again for your work, YANG models are never a fun task to do.

Regards

-éric

# Sect #

no need for capitalized “Destination address”

# Sect 2

 *blocking* please use the right template from BCP14

#Sect 3

no need to repeat the introduction text from sect 1

# Section 3.2

no need to capitalize “Data Model”

please expand “RCS” at first use

# Sect 3.3

use either “YANG data model” or “YANG module” but not “YANG model”

s/always derives/is always derived/ ? (Passive voice)

s/MUST derive/MUST be derived/ ?

Suggest renaming the section into “Conventions for Field Identifiers”

# Sect 3.4

Please do not capitalize “byte” (and you may want to use the plural form)

# Sect 3.7

Please expand “CDA”

Unsure whether “strings must be converted to binary” is non-ambiguous. How can it be done ? Should there be a reference ?

# Sec 3.9

s/ shows some CDA definition/ shows some CDA definitions/

# Sec 3.10.2

It should be clear for the reader that this text is coming out of RFC 8724 and not specified by this I-D.

# Sec 3.10.3

Suggest to add somewhere that "all1" is lower case "ALL" followed by figure "1".

# Sec 3.10.4

It should be clear for the reader that this text is coming out of RFC 8724 and not specified by this I-D.

Why "All1" (capitalized) while previously "all1" (lowercase) was used ?

# Sec 3.10.5

"rexpresses" ?

# Sec 3.10.6

Should the text be clear that l2-word-size is expressed in bits ?

# Sec 4.2

s/milli-seconds for real time/milliseconds for real-time/

s/micro-second/microsecond/

s/ computed through/ computed by/ ?

An RFC must be accurate, so text like "of about 1.05 second" is not suitable. If it is about 2**20 microseconds, then be explicit.

# Section 5

Thanks for including this section. But, per RFC 7942 section 2.1, a note to the RFC editor must be included to remove this section before publication.

# Section 6

I am afraid that there must be some IANA considerations for each and every YANG module, e.g., see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-25#section-6 

# Section 7

Please use the YANG security template: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines

# Section 9

The location of the YANG module is unusual, it should come before the "implementation status".

s/code begins/CODE BEGINS/ same for ends of course __

Please put "" around the filename.