Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-05.txt

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

Getting there

The convention is to limit editors to five, lest there is no room for
anything else on page one.  Some ADs are more aggressive on this than
others but seven is likely to draw comment; the usual technique is to
have
one name as (Editor) and list the others at the end.  If you want more
than five, then you will likely be asked to justify that they all made
significant contributions

Abstract

You will likely be asked to expand LER and LSR on first use.  I do not
think that they are well enough known IETF-wide to not need expanding.
An Abstract needs to be understandable on its own without recourse to
the Definitions section

Introduction

The MPLS Static LSP YANG model is broken !
The MPLS Static LSP YANG model is divided
would be better IMHO


 module ietf-mpls-static

   import ietf-mpls { ..  reference "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang: MPLS
Base YANG Data Model";
You are asking the RFC-Editor to notice and replace this I-D name;
better to have
     reference "RFC YYYY: MPLS Base YANG Data Model";
with a note up front

// RFC Ed.: replace YYYY with RFC number assigned to
draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang
and remove this note

-  prefix "rt-types";  reference "RFC6991:
Right prefix, wrong RFC. Hint look at s.2.3:-)

   import ietf-te { ... reference "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te: A YANG Data
Model for Traffic Engineering Tunnels and Interfaces";
same idea but make it ZZZZ

   reference "RFC ZZZZ: A YANG Data Model for Traffic
                Engineering Tunnels and Interfaces";

and up front

// RFC Ed.: replace ZZZZ with RFC number assigned to
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te:
and remove this note

(Some editors use XXXX for all such I-Ds which I do not think very
helpful:-(

Figure 3: MPLS Static LSP YANG module
It is unusual to label YANG modules as Figures.


module ietf-mpls-static-extended

  import ietf-mpls { ...    reference "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang: MPLS
Base YANG Data Model";

See above


  import ietf-routing {prefix "rt";
    reference "RFC6991: Common YANG Data Types";
See above

reference "draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang
reference "RFC XXXX
(you already have notes to replace XXXX)


Figure 4: Extended MPLS Static LSP YANG module
Again not wrong but unusual


Security Considerations
is not the current template since it lacks reference to RESTCONF which
then needs to be a Normative Reference

Also, it is weak in that it does not identify the nodes that need
protecting.  Here it is probably enough to say
'All nodes defined in this YANG module that are
   writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
   default) may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
   in some network environments

draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang is an example of a more comprehensive analysis.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 5:04 PM


> Hi Tom,
>
> Thank you much for your review comments. We have addressed your
comments in latest revision of the drafts
(draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-07 and draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-09).
Please let us know if you have any further comments or whether you're
satisfied with the resolution.
>
> Regards,
> Tarek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of "t.petch"
<[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, February 16, 2018 at 5:55 PM
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-05.txt
>
>     As a YANG module, I think that this needs some - well, quite a lot
of -
>     work
>
>     - Terminology section needs to reference RFC8174
>
>     - ietf-netmod-revised-datastores is the correct reference for most
of
>     the terms in the Terminology section
>
>     - ietf-rib needs a reference (ietf-routing is the usual base
routing
>     module)
>
>     - it references YANG 1.0 and not 1.1 - if this is justified, it
needs an
>     explanation
>
>     - it is not NMDA compliant - this needs changing or justifying
>
>     - " and augments the MPLS Base YANG model defined in module
>        "ietf-mpls" in [I-D.saad-mpls-static-yang].
>
>     ietf-mpls does not appear an the referenced I-D
>
>     - the I-D has five authors, the YANG module has ten
>
>     - the module lacks a copyright clause
>
>     - the imports need references, best provided with a reference
clause for
>     each,  and again in the text of the I-D and in the I-D References
>     section
>     see
>     draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module
>     for an example of this
>
>     - good practice is to list the prefix used and the RFC in which
they can
>     be found somewhere in the text of the I-D
>     draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis
>     has an example of this
>
>     - the YANG module needs a reference back to the RFC in which it
appears
>     along with a note to the RC editor to replace XXXX with the
relevant
>     number - you have a reference to RFC3031 which is sadly mistaken
>
>     - If a reference to RFC3031 is warranted, then it needs to appear
in the
>     text of the I-D and in the References section
>
>     - static-extended - same comments
>
>     - Security Considerations needs updating - it needs to call out
the
>     vulnerable objects
>
>     Tom Petch
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: <[e-mail]>
>     To: <[e-mail]>
>     Cc: <[e-mail]>
>     Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 5:42 PM
>     Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-05.txt
>
>
>     >
>     > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
Internet-Drafts
>     directories.
>     > This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching
WG of
>     the IETF.
>     >
>     >         Title           : A YANG Data Model for MPLS Static LSPs
>     >         Authors         : Tarek Saad
>     >                           Kamran Raza