Re: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends

["Mehmet Ersue" <[e-mail]>]

One question coming up in my mind is against which criteria should such drafts be reviewed.
A YANG module has its review criteria defined in YANG RFCs.
However examples may be manifold and imperfect.

Cheers,
Mehmet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 6:09 PM
> To: Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]>; 'Martin Bjorklund' <mbj@tail-
> f.com>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends
> 
> 
> 
> > I did not start review for netconf-event-notifications-08.
> >
> > Netconf co-chairs: Please clarify whether a review is required.
> 
> 
> What's in a YANG Doctor review?  Is it just syntax, or semantics too?
> If it includes semantics, then does that then entail needing to read the draft
> text as well, to determine if the YANG module expresses the correct
> semantics or find that the draft text is wrong?  Would it also extend to
> reviewing the examples in the draft, to further ensure that the semantics are
> understood correctly or, possibly, that there is an error in the example?
> 
> Yes, I am aware that netconf-event-notifications does not define a YANG
> module, but it does have examples that for the YANG modules in the yang-
> push and subscriber-notifications drafts.  In that sense, I'm wondering if they
> need to be reviewed, or do we expect the YD reviewers of those other two
> drafts to look at this draft already?
> 
> FWIW, I not talking about what might be found via validation.  I've already
> asked the authors to post a script that validates the 14 examples in this
> draft...
> 
> 
> K.
>