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? _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
