[MBONED] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-01
Reshad Rahman via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 11 April 2021 20:57 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A889F3A1DFE;
Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Reshad Rahman via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mboned-dorms.all@ietf.org, mboned@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <161817467857.25277.18208608025617706305@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:57:58 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/F7x1TM8ZqdjFq8jlSSi9-N-NMCo>
Subject: [MBONED] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-01
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>,
<mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mboned/>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>,
<mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 20:57:59 -0000
Reviewer: Reshad Rahman Review result: On the Right Track YANG Doctor review of rev-01 by Reshad Rahman. Caveat: I won't pretend to fully understand the motivation behind DORMS. I've reviewed this mostly from a YANG perspective. Comments/questions: - OOC, why is DORMS limited to RESTCONF? I do understand why RESTCONF is appealing, but potential deployments might be using NETCONF, CORECONF or gNMI? - The data in ietf-dorms is said to be read-only but doesn't have "config false" - I'd add a "dorms" container at the top with "metadata" under "dorms". If other DORMS data needs to be added in the future, it would get added under "dorms". This would minimize top-level nodes as per RFC8407 section 4.10. - "mandatory" is not needed for list keys, it's actually ignored as mentioned in RFC7950 section section 7.8.2 - If a group requires a minimum number of udp-stream entries (e.g. 1), add a "min-elements" statement under "group". If not, leave as-is. - 7.1 Security considerations, looks like the read-only data is not deemed sensitive, please add a statement to that effect. Regarding NACM, consider a SHOULD instead of MAY? Regards, Reshad. - Even though the YANG model is not complex, adding an example always helps. Regards, Reshad.
- [MBONED] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-m… Reshad Rahman via Datatracker
- Re: [MBONED] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Holland, Jake
- Re: [MBONED] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Reshad Rahman
- Re: [MBONED] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Holland, Jake
- Re: [MBONED] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Reshad Rahman