Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02


On 02/08/2018 11:46, tom petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mach Chen" <mach.chen@huawei.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 2:58 AM
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Looks good to me!
> Well it would if we were allowed to have [References] in the Abstract
> which we are not allowed to have:-)
OK, I can remove those.  But the NMDA one I copied verbatim from the 
abstract in RFC 8343 ;-)

Thanks,
Rob


>
> Tom Petch
>
>> Best regards,
>> Mach
>>
>> From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwilton@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 11:37 PM
>> To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>;
> draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model.all@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org
>> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
>>
>> Hi Mach,
>>
>> Thanks for the comments, we will address all of these.
>>
>> Specifically for the abstract, I propose changing the text to:
>>
>> "
>>
>>     This document defines a YANG data model for the management of the
>>
>>     Address Resolution Protocol (ARP).  It extends the basic ARP
>>
>>     functionality contained in the ietf-ip YANG data model, defined in
>>
>>     [RFC8344], to provide management of optional ARP features and
>>
>>     statistics.
>>
>>
>>
>>     The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network
>>
>>     Management Datastore Architecture defined in [RFC8342].
>>
>> "
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>> On 01/08/2018 09:48, Mach Chen wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of
> this draft.
>>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02
>>
>>
>>
>> The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
> perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for
> publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time
> during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of
> the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. As
> this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was
> to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please
> consider my comments along with the other working group last call
> comments.
>>
>>
>> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>>
>>
>> Document: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02
>>
>>   Reviewer: Mach Chen
>>
>>   Review Date: 01 August 2018
>>
>>   Intended Status: Standards Track
>>
>>
>>
>> Summary
>>
>>
>>
>> The draft  defines a YANG model for ARP configurations, which covers
> static ARP, ARP caching, proxy ARP and gratuitous ARP. The model is very
> short and the content is straightforward. It can be a reasonable start
> point for WG adoption call.
>>
>>
>> General comments:
>>
>>
>>
>> Although I am not a native English speaker, I also feel that the
> document needs some enhancements on its wording and grammar to make it
> more clean and readable.
>>
>>
>> For example,  the following text needs some rewording or may be
> removed.
>> Abstract:
>>
>> "The data model performs as
>>
>>     a guideline for configuring ARP capabilities on a system.  It is
>>
>>     intended this model be used by service providers who manipulate
>>
>>     devices from different vendors in a standard way."
>>
>>
>>
>> Specific comments:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. It's lack of the IANA section.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Section 3.1 and Section 3.3,  suggest to add relevant references to
> ARP caching and gratuitous ARP.
>>
>>
>> 3.  import ietf-interfaces {
>>
>>      prefix if;
>>
>>      description
>>
>>        "A Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
>>
>>         compatible version of the ietf-interfaces module
>>
>>         is required.";
>>
>>    }
>>
>>    import ietf-ip {
>>
>>      prefix ip;
>>
>>      description
>>
>>        "A Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
>>
>>         compatible version of the ietf-ip module is
>>
>>         required.";
>>
>>    }
>>
>>
>>
>> Lack of the reference RFCs.
>>
>> And the descriptions seem not appropriate, some of other descriptions
> in this document have the similar issue, suggest to revise those
> descriptions.
>>
>>
>> In addition, idnits tool shows:
>>
>>
>>
>> == Missing Reference: 'RFC826' is mentioned on line 77, but not
> defined
>>
>>
>>    == Missing Reference: 'RFC6536' is mentioned on line 583, but not
> defined
>>
>>
>>    ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341)
>>
>>
>>
>>    == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis' is defined on line
> 606,
>>       but no explicit reference was found in the text
>>
>>
>>
>>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC0826' is defined on line 636, but no
> explicit
>>       reference was found in the text
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Mach
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtgwg mailing list
>> rtgwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>>