[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-08.txt

"Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com> Wed, 17 January 2018 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <hejia@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A58113160E; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:50:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.23
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NBqQ9q2F7C3D; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 578E813160B; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C91A8D64A988B; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 06:50:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMA405-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 06:50:10 +0000
Received: from DGGEMA503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by DGGEMA405-HUB.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:50:01 +0800
From: "Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com>
To: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis.all@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-08.txt
Thread-Index: AdOPXq3GoHXlPWDwRv+GyrBCDNGb/Q==
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 06:50:00 +0000
Message-ID: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719553034791@DGGEMA503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/brTicEcONo6VJAeXhc3Rch1uZQw>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-08.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 06:50:34 -0000


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-08.txt 
Reviewer: Jia He 
Review Date: 17 January 2018
IETF LC End Date: 15 January 2018 
Telechat date: 25 January 2018
Intended Status: Standards Track

This document provides an NMDA-compliant version of YANG data model for routing management. It is very well written and ready for publication. But I happened to see a small nit in Appendix D just before I finished my review, see below.


Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.

In Appendix D, the namespace of "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" is written as "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing-3". "-3" is not meaningful and needs to be deleted.