[TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10

Radek Krejčí <rkrejci@cesnet.cz> Thu, 25 October 2018 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
X-Original-To: tictoc@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B8112D7EA; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Radek Krejčí <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang.all@ietf.org, tictoc@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.87.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154045022283.6867.1264697701888740594@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:50:22 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tictoc/ayuo5-wZMXE4wVvnhBSlUalJxOM>
Subject: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10
X-BeenThere: tictoc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock BOF <tictoc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tictoc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tictoc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:50:23 -0000

Reviewer: Radek Krejčí
Review result: Ready with Nits

This is my YANG-doctor review of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10. I have
reviewed it mainly from the YANG perspective, since I'm not familiar with IEEE
1588.

The draft as well as the YANG module ietf-ptp@2018-09-10 are in a good shape
and ready to publish. I have only 2, say, editorial notes.

1) email of Rodney Cummings in the module's contact statement misses
(in contrast to emails of other authors) starting ('<') and ending ('>') tags.

2) I don't see any reason for the following paragraph in the appendix A3:

   Under the assumptions of section A.1, the first IEEE 1588 YANG
   module prefix can be the same as the last IETF 1588 YANG module
   prefix (i.e. "ptp"), since the nodes within both YANG modules are
   compatible.

Since the module's prefix is used only locally, it may change when
the module is updated (RFC 7950, sec. 11). So the mentioned paragraph
seems pointless to me (and therefore confusing for readers).