Dear all,

Here is the part 2 of the AD review, from section 4.21 on.

Regarding the part 1, thanks Andy for addressing all comments in version 17.

- section 4.22 "Data Correlation.

Not sure what you mean by the section title and "Data can be correlated in various 
Which data? YANG modules, YANG objects, object instances, from different YANG 
server, etc.
I guess I miss a sentence or two regarding this "correlation" objective and 
which guidelines this section
is going to provide to "authors and reviewers of Standards Track specifications 
containing YANG data model modules".
Note: I read that section multiple times.

- section 4.22
   It is sometimes useful to separate configuration data and operational
   state, so that they do not not even share the exact same naming
   characteristics.  The correlation between configuration the
   operational state that is affected by changes in configuration is a
   complex problem.  There may not be a simple 1:1 relationship between
   a configuration data node and an operational state node.  Further
   work is needed in YANG to clarify this relationship.  Protocol work
   may also be needed to allow a client to retrieve this type of
   information from a server.  At this time the best practice is to
   clearly document any relationship to other data structures in the
   "description" statement.

Isn't it clarified with NMDA. It's not inline with 4.23.2, which says:
   Designers SHOULD describe and justify any NMDA exceptions in detail,
   such as the use of separate subtrees and/or separate leafs.

... and I guess confusing in light of the real guidelines in 4.23.3
Btw, why is this paragraph in 4.22 and not in 4.23?

- section 4.23

        Operational state is now modeled using YANG according to new NMDA,

Please add a reference to the draft.

- section 4.26 "YANG 1.1 Guidelines"
I'm confused by the title. The entire document is about 1.1, right?
I guess you want to express something such as "YANG 1.1 specific Constructs 

- section 4.26.1

     Multiple revisions of the same module can be imported, provided that
     different prefixes are used.

Reading Any contradiction?
Then reading:
   This MAY be done if the authors can
   demonstrate that the "avoided" definitions from the most recent of
   the multiple revisions are somehow broken or harmful to

"avoided" definitions?
I simply don't understand this sentence.

- section 4.26.4
   The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC6536 
<>] does not support
   parameter access control for RPC operations.

Let's use draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis

- Appendix B

   YANG Module Registry: Register the YANG module name, prefix,
         namespace, and RFC number, according to the rules specified
         in [RFC7950 <>].

I guess this is [RFC6020] in this case. Indeed the "YANG Module Names" registry 
is specified in RFC6020/.
See for example

- Appendix B
References -- verify that the references are properly divided
      between normative and informative references, thatRFC 2119 
<>  is
      included as a normative reference if the terminology defined
      therein is used in the document

Refer to RFC8174

- Appendix B (and maybe some more text somewhere else.
To refer to Tom Petch latest email to NETMOD, we should need a few words about:
  If a YANG module has a Reference or Description clause specifying an
  I-D, and the I-D is listed as an Informative Reference.

Regards, Benoit

netmod mailing list

Reply via email to