[yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-20
Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 24 August 2020 12:51 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722DF3A0D88; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 05:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org, draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.14.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <159827349041.30993.687894019314723215@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 05:51:30 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/vYLLt0VtFQGZJ6TlOMEwSe-l-Cs>
Subject: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-20
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:51:31 -0000
Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka Review result: Ready with Nits I also did an early YANG Doctors review [1]. My comments regarding YANG module revisions and normative references are addressed in the current revision. The suggested naming changes were either accepted or, I assume, addressed in the WG and rejected (which is OK). Compared to the previously reviewed revision -09, the current revision contains one additional YANG module: ietf-segment-routing-mpls. This module adheres to the same high standards as the previous two, and I discovered no issues with all of them. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-spring-sr-yang-09-yangdoctors-early-lhotka-2018-10-24/ Comments ------------ - The title of Section 6 (States) still looks weird to me. My suggestion is to use "State Data" instead. - The title of Section 8 should use plural "YANG Modules" because it contains three modules. It would also be helpful to introduce a subsection for each module. - Due to the RFC line length limit, the example in Appendix A uses a line break inside a URI of a XML namespace declaration, which makes the XML invalid. This can be probably avoided by including the XML namespace declaration for "sr-cmn" in the top-level element, i.e. <routing xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing" xmlns:sr-cmn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-segment-routing-common"> If not, it would be better to use conventions of RFC 8792. - Assuming that the example is intended for human readers, it might be better to provide it in the JSON representation per RFC 7951.
- [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of dr… Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker
- Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review o… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review o… Yingzhen Qu