Re: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03

["BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks Tom for your careful review!

Tarek, I reviewed how you distributed the references between normative and informative. The definition is in RFC7322:
" where normative references are essential to implementing
   or understanding the content of the RFC and informative references
   provide additional information."
And the IESG statement:
https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/
"normative..documents that must be read to understand or implement"

I am wondering on this huge list of normative references. Is the reader required to read all of these before understanding/implementing this document? Especially the ITU-T references, do they need to be in the normative section? A quick scan of the document, most are used as a reference for a term/definition.  Especially G.808, which is on terms and definitions, is listed as normative. But when listed, G.808 is paired with RFC4427. And RFC4427 is listed as informative (which I would say is correct). I would say only RFC4427 is needed (as informative) as it references G.808. I see many with multiple references (even more than 2) listed. As Tom says, references are good, but there's no contest here, e.g. the more references listed, proof of the model😊 And listing a definition in the YANG model as normative reference will not guarantee a node implements the definition. Please review these again, I think many can be informative.

Thanks,
Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Tarek Saad (tsaad) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:11 AM
To: tom petch <[e-mail]>; Jan Lindblad <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03

Hi Tom,

Thank again for your review comments below. We've uploaded version 04/-05 which attempts to address these comments. 
See inline [TS] for resolution.

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 12:13 PM
To: Jan Lindblad <[e-mail]>, Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03

    Tarek
    
    The YANG modules have lots of references - good - but they are not in
    the I-D references - not good.
    
    My list is
    
    3272
    4202
    4328
    4657
    5817
    6004
    6205
    6511
    7139
    7308
    7551
    7571
    7579
    7951
    G.808
    G.8031
    G.8131
    G.873.1

[TS]: thanks. I've added the missing references and they should show in the I-D references now.
    
    s.3.1 I would find more usable if the types were in an order I could
    recognise, such as alphabetical

[TS]: OK, I tried an attempt to sort the typedefs alphabetically.
    
      import ietf-routing-types { prefix "rt-types";
    reference "RFC6991: Common YANG Data Types";
    perhaps RFC8294 is intended

[TS]: corrected to RFC8294

    "   defined in ietf-network.yang, to help user to understand ""
    might benefit from a reference - is this
    draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo?

[TS]: added reference RFC8345.
    
    /"Then index of the label/ "The index of the label /

[TS]: fixed typo.    

              container tiebreakers {
                description
                  "The list of tiebreaker criterion to apply
                   on an equally favored set of paths to pick best";
                list tiebreaker {
                  description
                  "The list of tiebreaker criterion to apply
                     on an equally favored set of paths to pick best";
    One description is perhaps enough

[TS]: removed/updated redundant description.
    
    uses path-objective-function_config;
    using _ is not wrong but is discouraged, mixing _ with - in a label more
    so

[TS]: OK, we have moved away from using "_" in the naming.
    
    /This document registers a YANG module/
    This document registers two YANG modules/

[TS]: fixed typo.
    
       name: ietf-te-types namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-
       types prefix: ietf-te-types reference: RFC3209
       name: ietf-te-packet-types namespace:
       urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types prefix: ietf-te-
       packet-types reference: RFC3209
    
    Perhaps /3209/XXXX/

[TS]: fixed.
    
Regards,
Tarek

    Tom Petch
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jan Lindblad" <[e-mail]>
    To: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <[e-mail]>
    Cc: <[e-mail]>;
    <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
    <[e-mail]>
    Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:10 AM
    Subject: Re: [Teas] Yangdoctors early review of
    draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03 (was -01)
    
    
    >