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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

Tarek

Getting there .

You will need to have a reference to the new I-D references in the body
of the I-D else you will get unused references.  One way to do this is
to have a Section 4.1 This module references [RFC3272]. [....  I have
not gone through and seen how many this applies to but imagine it is
most of them.

Also you have G.8031 but G808.  Not wrong, but...

      import ietf-routing-types { prefix "rt-types";
now has the right RFC but the wrong title; should be
Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:10 PM

> 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)
>
>
>     >
>
>
>
>