[Lsr] Shepherd review comments on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Authors,

Here are some comments I have based on draft version 29.

Here are the warnings from "idnits". To resolve those unused reference issue, I'd suggest to use what's done in the ospf model draft, beginning of Section 3.

idnits 2.16.01

/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt:
/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt(273): Line has weird spacing: '...-method    str...'
/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt(733): Line has weird spacing: '...-family    ian...'
/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt(1238): Code start at 1238: <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>".
/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt(5568): Line has weird spacing: '... system  recei...'
/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt(5671): Code end at 5671: <CODE ENDS>.


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 7
     longer pages, the longest (page 6) being 63 lines


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  -- The document date (December 27, 2018) is 15 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5130' is defined on line 5236, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC5130]  Previdi, S., Shand, M., Ed., and C. Martin, "A Policy Con...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5305' is defined on line 5246, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Enginee...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5306' is defined on line 5250, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC5306]  Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for IS-IS",...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5880' is defined on line 5258, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5881' is defined on line 5262, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC5881]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6119' is defined on line 5272, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC6119]  Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6232' is defined on line 5276, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC6232]  Wei, F., Qin, Y., Li, Z., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Purge Ori...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7794' is defined on line 5299, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC7794]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7810' is defined on line 5304, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC7810]  Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7917' is defined on line 5309, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC7917]  Sarkar, P., Ed., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Litkowski, S., a...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC8405' is defined on line 5355, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC8405]  Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Gredler, H., Lindem, A., Fra...'

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5443


     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 13 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).



Nits:

*        The draft title "protocol" should start with capital letter P.

*        I don't think the word "container" is needed here:

420        The IS-IS configuration container is divided in:



422        o  Global parameters.



424        o  Per interface configuration (see Section 2.4).


*        Should be "raised"

978         if-state-change: raise when the state of an interface changes.

*        "the system finds"

980         corrupted-lsp-detected: raised when the system find that an LSP

981         that was stored in memory has become corrupted.

*        I'd suggest change it to "isis" container, instead of configuration container. Or maybe change it to "isis module" to be consistent with the next following paragraph.

1033        The "isis" configuration container augments the "/rt:routing/

*        Repetition of section 2.5
1049        The modules defined in this document use some groupings from ietf-
1050        keychain [RFC8177].

*        I'd suggest to change to "This YANG module" to be consistent with the beginning of the description.
1154        This YANG model conforms to the Network Management

*        Typo
4888     For IS-IS authentication, configuration is supported vua the

*        In IANA consideration, the registrant contact should be "The IESG"

4914                URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-isis

4915                Registrant Contact: IS-IS WG

4916                XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace





Thanks,

Yingzhen