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

Jeff Tantsura <> Wed, 01 August 2018 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4760130E35; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWFI-yjIP19r; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DE49130DC8; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r184-v6so7553396ywg.6; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 11:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L7gJ0Js5nADF84llHERe625/afzLX7qxq2kFIHA4ZOU=; b=b9sBfywo+Taa8Cp/tflJYWzoLhuTG1cFdq7AwsFYcn60nE4tfZtoWVOqFJR/h2oxZd xJVe5LN6fSTVTuP8zMPPSxsezpVTp19NC6dkeGOX/20xF9uHEZKR358eCClaiAD7YmQL IR9PoXDI0M+myI/Ao7LEjczXfyqCmWVRB6mW9O23Wlr1Tb+o1ndlnPKLxVCatc3xCWeS 50e8yA9v34rB4kbzRhbwy078W2YGPDXugSfB5fSS53vKULq3VC7qsiLFrXS57smwLpgl Wq1Ly2FWqsGj9E0um/nqHPRVWZTr64WVlaGvS7zt/IpLf34Yul6pAm3pvrzFwLK7XDf/ xvHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=L7gJ0Js5nADF84llHERe625/afzLX7qxq2kFIHA4ZOU=; b=fd4iTw06G00FEcA8Iz1mQyukrWRwDHkHnugs2G9kQXCT9T2mR+EsLZveQompGiSW7r tAr0sFQKt3nQNzLtLQMJkfnx9+49bzjKIlS1K4YWh/W4dhYOAn/FNww8Ncdw9JwkOvH0 h+B7kIYCtD/vVEZdlvtbGA6d84AXj0G7L+BN0GJcOXs3JlhupYj+mdLYWuA+PRZ31n+H 2/9m9k8KySOcpDON5FBt0C716TI0/QwCC0QG+xHpLFKjow/DoqWiVo4k1hO7TpPGiRmj /Nywj6tzj27UjubP3qxZDosT3MgYhUEWTMnr2RHiYd0k0eFqtc/e58sYLaq7JmrS3Mte 6lYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHL+/j8xFbpP9iJhQ9B7qLGf6/wMlpy89r9o+PPlCABqrBN1xT7 wDFDURuANyvxAYBMIj+d+vA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpetTV2hC0RF6IvX+aC5uAV5r8oIVR1DzKjjSALAjPh9kOef2vMMAPlpbPWDudgAGjlroXCtyQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a81:e548:: with SMTP id c8-v6mr14427420ywm.153.1533147600530; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 11:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id b135-v6sm21916542ywh.24.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Aug 2018 11:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.f.0.180709
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 11:19:58 -0700
Subject: Re: RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02
From: Jeff Tantsura <>
To: Mach Chen <>, "" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 18:20:07 -0000


Many thanks for your review!
Authors - please make sure to address Mach' and Tom' comments. 
Rob - I'd specifically expect you to improve the readability of the draft (and fix the language).



On 8/1/18, 01:48, "Mach Chen" <>; wrote:

    I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. 
    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 ​ 
    Document: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02 
     Reviewer: Mach Chen 
     Review Date: 01 August 2018 
     Intended Status: Standards Track 
    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. 
    "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;
          "A Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
           compatible version of the ietf-interfaces module
           is required.";
      import ietf-ip {
        prefix ip;
          "A Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
           compatible version of the ietf-ip module is
    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,