[Netconf] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Mon, 02 April 2018 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D85F126CB6 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 20:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fWUwrTFpjudp for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 20:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B80A1126579 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 20:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id y69so8678171pfb.5 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Apr 2018 20:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=JzIoQaPsBaz96WKFJuwYUCVRcGlumwK5MaDOJXzBLXs=; b=oUumMlWwb4AUZe2dltRlhmmwp95vaDE4rnNdF8yjhIWnXroUMGEo3qXFWyhss94Zcv pEGxiAvPtryLhc2g8DKIYoFxxypkU1bQuTFPhY7mW2QdRw3Hu5Y6Lkder67hNyEVEr5U AoGc7qfPbeSbIeHlUZp/ZuQBIxslOy68hMdTOKCvLHN3ouV5Ie6cbis0YIn+yazj9+Nx fvxV5QevszfNnOUDfPLusTPxkmZd6arpmg4DmoU1rQPhQnApBClPIZzJVXc5PCUtb3KO KyqUAhKXPEbai3K2WP/sjz0VpYuWPMmb2vNtHszwTr6jZ9z2b90Q4sXVtibLixQqenGb gq8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=JzIoQaPsBaz96WKFJuwYUCVRcGlumwK5MaDOJXzBLXs=; b=jKRSm+txKurGI0mX3OG0vgoDXuoAAMhUtRRAQaa0gZTE6HOuGkEuSVwgOs0a2dQykv /L64RH++M3Eb434jRC/xpYaTcUp8i1+/hbc8mvc5wrVorn5/lQ8Iox8rdQOott58Hc6u zG+z/p2Y1BKNpqi8VSK44sLLXxZvVLZv1Hjde4tPKpnIelDSw9L4kUGew8aSo2TJvmch HheUVfQnKKC/prXlJtNwPu1qopfSE0KiJnd69+dd8KvnAK13jAt4kIMl6jUc9ohF0S8G OroA5j/9yS8YSiyoZ2bAwxhnOLPI1XzhWr8F+cjv8NuhAjHef06uFJ+kxuim+h4LIHvh kdBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HkIWno/R8zRf1J5OmClyJ7UpD7yTnnwIiZV9zLpa4gDhP1Nsaz s8vsRQNtF1x6dnjzzL7ppAwj8556
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/znpk7DyvjFS0LedlPAQ1y+/9MYFuSzl/HVmteuypdCQa800abS9a2679VTzlmHMkQWBUbvw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i133mr5075620pgc.194.1522640280037; Sun, 01 Apr 2018 20:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4700:1280:483a:1ec3:e512:4540? ([2601:647:4700:1280:483a:1ec3:e512:4540]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m9sm27818204pff.143.2018. for <netconf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 01 Apr 2018 20:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_03027C57-C221-4623-817E-936BAD3C0177"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Message-Id: <03CB4BEB-EAFC-45B3-BE40-B40720DF047D@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 20:39:23 -0700
To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/CrbPBC-4U542fkKz1R4AHAaclV8>
Subject: [Netconf] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 03:38:03 -0000

Minor comments:

Should the revision statement in the YANG module be updated to reflect the actual date of publication of the RFC, or will it remain 2018-02-21?

Not so minor a comment:

1) I note at least one use of the lower case (“must”) in the document. Suggest either shifting any lower-case requirements to upper case or using https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174> for the definition of requirements language. A Gen-ART review will look at some of the RFC 2119 language more critically.

2) A run to validate the example in the back of the document using yanglint revealed the following error. I could not validate if this was a tool issue, a tool use issue or a bug that needs looking at, as the error message is very cryptic and there are no references to any line numbers.

err : Module "ietf-yang-library" in another revision already implemented.
err : Module "ietf-yang-library" parsing failed.

3) A run of idnits reveals the following:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

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

     No issues found here.

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

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  == Line 282 has weird spacing: '...mespace    ine...'

  == Line 293 has weird spacing: '...mespace    ine…'

<I generally ignore this>

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. 

     (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
     ID-Checklist requires).

<I see that you do reference RFC 2119, so do not know why this message. Either ways, see my other comment on the use of lower case “must” statement.>

  -- The document date (February 27, 2018) is 33 days in the past.  Is this


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

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

<If I am updating the document, I would update some of these references>
<But check one reference in particular with (**)>

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores has been
     published as RFC 8342

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341)

<Any reason we are referencing RFC 6536 still?>

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo has been published
     as RFC 8345

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-entity has been published as RFC 8348

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis has been published as RFC

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis has been published as RFC

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis has been published as RFC

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has been
     published as RFC 8340

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


Mahesh Jethanandani