Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

<Here's the same message with hopefully more readable formatting>

Review of rev -04 by Reshad Rahman

The document is clear and well-written. While some issues have been identified, they can be resolved quickly.

Issues
	1.	YANG model P8, for “leaf xpath-filter”, add reference to RFC6021. There should also be a normative reference to RFC6021 (as per RFC8407)
	2.	Example P10, </interfa should be </interfaces>
	3.	Example P10, last paragraph talks about preference and explicit-router-id. This seems to be leftover from when the example was based on OSPF model.
	4.	Example P12 and P13. The RPC operation has “operational” as source (enabled is true)  and “intended” as target (enabled is false). The differences shown (in RPC output) have “value true” and “source-value false”. But I thought value came from target datastore and source-value from source datastore, so the values are reversed, i.e.. it should be “value false” and “source-value true” instead? Looking at the origin in the output I am wondering if the intent is to have “intended” as source and ”operational” as target. Or am I misunderstanding this?

Questions
	1.	YANG model: does the operation “delete” make sense for a diff operation? If it is kept, it’d be good to have some text explaining that for a diff operation, “delete” and “replace” are the same? If they’re not the same, please also add some text….
	2.	YANG model: prefix “cp” doesn’t seem to be a great choice since cp is associated with copying. I realize that there is some preference for 2-letter prefixes, but to me “cp” is not a great choice. What about “cmp”? WG/chairs should have a word to say about this.
	3.	YANG model P9, for the “uses path:yang-patch”, why not have a  reference to RFC8072 (is it because the description above mentions RFC8072)?
	4.	Section 7 mentions rate limiting requests per client. Should there be a “global” rate-limiting too, i.e not client-specific?
	5.	Wondering if section 8 should be in an Appendix (or even removed)? Also, the method suggested doesn’t seem to guarantee that the difference persisted for the “dampening” time.

Nits:
	1.	P11 replace <operational<  with <operational>

On 2020-09-06, 4:42 PM, "yang-doctors on behalf of Reshad Rahman via Datatracker" <yang-doctors-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

    Reviewer: Reshad Rahman
    Review result: Ready with Issues

    Review of rev -04 by Reshad Rahman

    The document is clear and well-written. While some issues have been identified,
    they can be resolved quickly.

    Issues
            1.      YANG model P8, for “leaf xpath-filter”, add reference to
            RFC6021. There should also be a normative reference to RFC6021 (as per
            RFC8407) 2.      Example P10, </interfa should be </interfaces> 3.     
            Example P10, last paragraph talks about preference and
            explicit-router-id. This seems to be leftover from when the example was
            based on OSPF model. 4.      Example P12 and P13. The RPC operation has
            “operational” as source (enabled is true)  and “intended” as target
            (enabled is false). The differences shown (in RPC output) have “value
            true” and “source-value false”. But I thought value came from target
            datastore and source-value from source datastore, so the values are
            reversed, i.e.. it should be “value false” and “source-value true”
            instead? Looking at the origin in the output I am wondering if the
            intent is to have “intended” as source and ”operational” as target. Or
            am I misunderstanding this?

    Questions
            1.      YANG model: does the operation “delete” make sense for a diff
            operation? If it is kept, it’d be good to have some text explaining
            that for a diff operation, “delete” and “replace” are the same? If
            they’re not the same, please also add some text…. 2.      YANG model:
            prefix “cp” doesn’t seem to be a great choice since cp is associated
            with copying. I realize that there is some preference for 2-letter
            prefixes, but to me “cp” is not a great choice. What about “cmp”?
            WG/chairs should have a word to say about this. 3.      YANG model P9,
            for the “uses path:yang-patch”, why not have a  reference to RFC8072
            (is it because the description above mentions RFC8072)? 4.      Section
            7 mentions rate limiting requests per client. Should there be a
            “global” rate-limiting too, i.e not client-specific? 5.      Wondering
            if section 8 should be in an Appendix (or even removed)? Also, the
            method suggested doesn’t seem to guarantee that the difference
            persisted for the “dampening” time.

    Nits:
            1.      P11 replace <operational<  with <operational>

    _______________________________________________
    yang-doctors mailing list
    yang-doctors@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors