I didn't respond to Alex's response to my YANG Doctor review earlier, but I did just now review his response to me against, taking into account the current (-16) version of the draft. Most everything has been addressed, thank you. The remaining items that I think worthy of mentioning again are listed below. The WG can do with them as they will.
1) "ietf-network" uses prefix “nd”, should be “nw” and "ietf-network-topology" uses prefix “lnk” should be “nt” or maybe “nwtp”. There is a documented convention for prefix naming. Juergen shared it with me once before. I can't find it now. In general, I don't think the "historic" status of something should get in the way of doing what's right. In this case, it seems like a minor thing though, but still… 2) the groupings "link-ref" and "tp-ref" descriptions should indicate why they are defined but not used in these modules. 3) there are *no* examples in the document. Every YANG module draft should have examples of its YANG modules. Suggest create examples for some use-cases in Appendix A. 4) The document defines its own "datastore" term, rather than import the term from revised-datastores. A lot of time has been put into getting the terms right in revised-datastores, and any ambiguity here could be a problem. On the other hand, this draft already has revised-datastores as a normative reference, so likely any ambiguity will be overlooked, but the issue disappears entirely by importing the term. 5) Both /nd:networks/network/network-id and /nd:networks/network/link/link-id are the key fields to their respective lists, but they are not the first nodes listed in the list. This is unusual, breaking a convention of some sort, though it might be be an informal convention. Just the same, why surprise the reader by going against expectations? Thanks, Kent // assigned YANG doctor On 10/15/17, 3:26 PM, "i2rs on behalf of Susan Hares" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Greetings: We’ve only received approval from this last call. However, this is the 4th WG LC. All others have been positive and well-attended. The draft has been kicked back for integration with security considerations and the NETMOD revised data stores. We’ve resolved these issues. This draft and the L3 Topology draft are key to other drafts. The WG chairs plan declare consensus on this draft, and send it to the IESG. If anyone objects, please send email to the list by 10/20. Susan Hares and Russ White
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
