[yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-04

[Reshad Rahman <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Reshad Rahman
Review result: Ready with Nits

YANG Doctor review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-04 by Reshad Rahman.

1 module in this draft:
- [e-mail]

YANG validation on 2018-02-18 reports 2 errors but no warnings. This comes from
yanglint 0.14.69 and seems to be a tool issue: err : Module "ietf-yang-library"
in another revision already implemented. err : Module "ietf-yang-library"
parsing failed.

2 examples are provided in this draft (Appendices B and C).

Module [e-mail]:
- typedef revision-identifier. The definition allows invalid dates such as
2018-99-99, has there been any consideration to use a more restrictive
definition, e.g. ‘\d{4}-[0-1][0-9]-[0-3][0-9]’ (I realize this still allows
incorrect dates)?  Also the revision timestamp is just a date which follows
YYYY-MM-DD format, isn’t there an existing common typedef (as there is for
date-and-time) which can be reused? - grouping implementation-parameters should
be renamed module-implementation-parameters? - The groupings defined are used
only once. For yang-library-parameters I see why this is done since it can be
reused. But for others such as implementation-parameters, I don’t see why a
grouping is needed. Maybe this is just authors’ preference to regroup
information. - Description of leaf module in list deviation: by
“self-referential” I assume that this means that the reference can not refer to
the ietf-yang-library module? While this may seem obvious I believe it’d be
good to spell it out. - list module-set. Since this is for schemas, consider
renaming it to something along the lines of schema-module-set? - Use of
“non-import module” in a few descriptions. Should this be “non import-only
modules”?

Nits:
- Section 1, 2nd paragraph s/informaton/information/
- Section 1, 3rd paragraph, add “” quote around /module-states.
- Section 1, 5th paragraph s/Since the YANG library contents changes/Since the
YANG library contents change/? - Section 4, 2nd paragraph “…that individual
datastore schema share..”. Should that be “… that individual datastore schemas
share..”? - Appendix B and C. The examples use YANG models which are still
being updated (hence the note to RFC Editor). Why not use a YANG model which is
stable, is this because of need to have an NMDA compliant module in the
examples?