[netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06.
Note that if you post the new version soon (before the end of this 
week), I could start the IETF last call, and the draft could be on Jan 
11th IESG telechat.

- I don't believe that the RFC 2119 keywords are right on the following 
sentences (SHOULD => should):

    o  The hardware data model SHOULD be suitable for new implementations
       to use as is.

    o  The hardware data model defined in this document can be
       implemented on a system that also implements ENTITY-MIB, thus the
       mapping between the hardware data model and ENTITY-MIB SHOULD be
       clear.

-


      1.2. Tree Diagrams


    Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in
    [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06#ref-I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams>].

You could remove the above and add the reference to section 3.

    This document defines the YANG module "ietf-hardware", which has the
    following structure [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06#ref-I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams>]:

Martin, be consistent with all your YANG modules. So keep your temp 
versions of RFC7223bis and RFC7277bis consistent as well.

- Some objects are read-write in RFC6933:
       entPhysicalSerialNum
       entPhysicalAlias
       entPhysicalAssetID
       entPhysicalUris

For example, entPhysicalSerialNum being read-write always bothered me.
serial-num is now "config false", which is a good news IMO.
In the reverse direction, entPhysicalMfgName is read-only in RFC6933, while it's "config true" in draft-ietf-netmod-entity
You should mention these ro/rw differences with RFC6933.
There might be other differences.

-
UUIDorZero

entPhysicalUUID OBJECT-TYPE
     SYNTAX      UUIDorZero
     MAX-ACCESS  read-only
     STATUS      current
     DESCRIPTION
             "This object contains identification information
             about the physical entity.  The object contains a
             Universally Unique Identifier, the syntax of this object
             must conform toRFC 4122, Section 4.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4122#section-4.1>.

             A zero-length octet string is returned if no UUID
             information is known."


The YANG module is:

          leaf uuid {
            type yang:uuid;
            config false;
            description
              "A Universally Unique Identifier of the component.";
            reference "RFC 6933 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6933>: entPhysicalUUID";
          }


Where:

  typedef uuid {
     type string {
       pattern '[0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-'
             + '[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}';
     }
     description
      "A Universally Unique IDentifier in the string representation
       defined in RFC 4122.  The canonical representation uses
       lowercase characters.

       The following is an example of a UUID in string representation:
       f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6
       ";
     reference
      "RFC 4122: A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN
                 Namespace";
   }

Again a difference between the MIB and YANG module to mention in the document?


Regards, Benoit (as OPS AD)