[yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04

[Reshad Rahman via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Reshad Rahman
Review result: On the Right Track

YANG Doctor review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04 (by Reshad
Rahman)

Major comments:
- Look at appendix B of RFC8407 for an example of how a YANG module should be
structured. This document does not abide to that. - Poor descriptions e.g.
"nsf-name" for leaf "nsf-name" etc - prefix "iiregi" doesn't seem right. What
about "nsfreg"? Probably needs coordination with the other I2NSF YANG modules
to have consistency between the prefixes. I see that YD Acee suggested
"nsfintf" for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06 - No unit specified
for bandwidth, processing (performance) - nsf-address is IPv4 specific -
Security considerations should list the nodes as per section 3.7 of RFC8407. -
Should this document be informational since 8329 is informational? - Section 2
should use RFC8174 also - Refer to RFC8407 instead of 6807 (YANG Guidelines) -
Examples should use IPv6 as examples (use the range from RFC3849). Kudos for
all the examples.

Minor comments and questions:
- The YANG trees such as Figure 6, 7 etc don't show the contents of the
groupings. So they don't help much. - nsf-port-address should be nsf-port? -
Section 4, last bullet. I am not an expert on I2NSF so not clear to me why this
query is needed, is it because NSF may not re-register after their capabilities
have been updated? Might be worth adding some explanation. - Have the examples
been validated?