Re: RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Thu, 02 August 2018 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51AF130DE6; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 04:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MgPLN60XsqBG; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 04:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17D69130DDB; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 04:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5243; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1533207989; x=1534417589; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cIqij/qDJWh5tyJbwEJO9vafOAvO1+gvgR+q/Ivf2wo=; b=WvbWoOcOq++usBR7ouZsGV6rEiH0IJPrwEyNAFmO6AwXBSYkklh7/XAL 6eeMFnoQFFmF4PFvDT278gq5hSJaOnhuAwe+UtBjUODUG1A7tfiPlwKwT 1WHeTZRlZ5lJhTAPCqSInscuwJ9UohdraFwJdTIvxB42cokTHQ36KoNy5 Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DhAQCB5GJb/xbLJq1bGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYQxbRIog36IZY1DLY0ziCcUgWYLGAuESQKDIjUXAQIBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQJtHAyFNgEBAQMBAQEhDwEFNgYFDAQLEgIBAQICAiMDAgInHwMOBgEMBgI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAYMcAYF3CA+xBYEuhF6FfIELiBSBQT+BEieBbX6DEAsBAQOBRoMZglUCh3u?= =?us-ascii?q?SKwmGGokiBoFJRYNZgk2FYIpbghWFWYFDATWBUjMaCBsVO4JpCYsMhT8+MAG?= =?us-ascii?q?PCQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,435,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="5519986"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Aug 2018 11:06:26 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.106] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-106.cisco.com [10.63.23.106]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w72B6QR9006856; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:06:26 GMT
Subject: Re: RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model.all@ietf.org" <draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model.all@ietf.org>, "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE292563246@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> <30620f3f-be62-bdbd-72fb-fab27439351b@cisco.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE292566105@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> <037301d42a4d$aa9dbe60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1e7f439a-b050-0ab2-bce3-9b91e2926b22@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 12:06:26 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <037301d42a4d$aa9dbe60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.63.23.106, dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-106.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/4bQ1lNaGhlMP5-krKhKpWkeqEwI>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 11:06:32 -0000


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
>>