Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

Regarding validation, section 3.10 refers to pyang tool. Since the set of tools might change in the future, shouldn't the reference be to the yangvalidator url or something along those lines (instead of an exhaustive list which may change)?

I think there is a nit in section 2.4, the '.' after [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] should be removed or replaced by a comma.

Regards,
Reshad.
________________________________________
From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Eric Voit (evoit)
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 7:06 PM
To: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis@ietf.org
Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

I was also encouraged to provide comments.  A couple (new?) minor ones...

Section 3.4:
- If a tree diagram is included for an augmented model, it SHOULD contain the integrated of the augmented model.  I.e., use the pyang -f command to generate the tree so that you can explicitly see the schema elements imported

Side comment: if a YANG module contains extension structures (like YANG-Data) these should also be shown in the tree, but I understand why you might not want to make that a requirement of this document.

Section 3.10: There should be a normative set of YANG validation tools which are run on upload of an Internet draft.   Errors and warnings found later (and perhaps through tools a user doesn't have) should not result in a module being given an error designation.

Thanks,
Eric

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod