Clyde, all,
In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following issues that
I think need to be addressed before the document can be sent to Benoit for AD
review:
1. Idnits found the following:
Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
being 3 characters in excess of 72.
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6021 (Obsoleted by RFC 6991)
** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 6587
== Missing Reference: 'RFC5425' is mentioned on line 359, but not defined
'[RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], and [RFC5848]....'
== Unused Reference: 'RFC7895' is defined on line 1406, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
'[RFC7895] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Module
L...'
== Unused Reference: 'RFC6242' is defined on line 1435, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
'[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Sh...'
2. `rfcstrip` extracted "ietf-syslog.yang", which is missing "@yyyy-mm-dd" in
its name
3. neither `pyang` nor `yanglint` found any errors with ietf-syslog.yang.
pyang says
for vendor-syslog-types-example: statement "identity" must have a
"description"
substatement.
4. testing the examples in the draft against yanglint:
- for both examples: Missing element's "namespace". (/config)
- just removing the "<config>" element envelop resolves this error.
5. the 2nd example uses IP address "2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1", but this SHOULD be a
domain name (e.g., foo.example.com)
6. in the YANG module, anywhere you have an RFC listed in a 'description'
statement,
there should be a 'reference' statement for that RFC.
7. in the tree diagram, the leafrefs no longer indicate what they point at,
they now all
just say "leafref". Did you do this on purpose, or are you using a
different tree
output generator from -15?
8. RFC6536 is listed as a normative reference, but it probably should be
informative.
9. Std-1003.1-2008 is listed as a normative reference, but it is not used
anywhere in the document.
10. RFC6242 is listed as an informative reference, but it is not used anywhere
in the document.
11. the document fails to declare its normative references to ietf-keystore and
ietf-tls-client-server.
Note: you manually entered the "[RFC yyyy], and [RFC xxxx]" references…
12. The IANA considerations section seems asymmetric. Either put both
registry insertions into
subsections, or keep them both at the top-level…
13. reviewing the final document against my original YD review, I have the
following responses. Let's be sure to close out these items as well. Ref:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/10lo41Ud4A3ZN11s-0gOfCe8NSE
1. ok
2. better
3. should be: s/the message/these messages/ [RFC Editor might've caught this]
4. better
5. still feel the same way, but no biggee
6. better, but from 8174, you should add the part "when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here."
7. fixed
8. fixed
9. you did what I asked, but the result still isn't satisfying...
10. some improvements made in this area, but my ask wasn't among them
11. better
12. better, but I think the 4th line should be indented too, right?
13. better, but I wish you called S1.3 "Tree Diagram Notation"
14. fixed
15. fixed
16. fixed
17. fine
18. still a weird line brake here. try putting the quoted string on the next
line.
19. fixed
20. fixed
21. not fixed (re: yang-security-guidelines)
22. fine
PS: please also be sure to follow-up with Benoit on his AD review.
Thanks,
Kent // shepherd & yang doctor
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
