Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07

[Nalini J Elkins]

Pete.,
Thanks for your comments.
> Note to shepherd: In the shepherding writeup, question 1 is not answered 
> correctly. This document is going for *Proposed* Standard, not *Internet* 
> Standard. 
Fixed.
> Further, there is no explanation for why this should be a standards track 
> document (though I believe the answer is pretty straightforward). You should 
> go correct that. 
It is my understanding that all YANG models are standards track documents.  
Shall I add that as text?

> While you're at it, you can update answer 15, as that nit was corrected.
Done. Thanks,

Nalini Elkins
CEO and Founder
Inside Products, Inc.
www.insidethestack.com
(831) 659-8360

  From: Pete Resnick 
 To: gen-art@ietf.org 
Cc: i...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org
 Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 9:01 AM
 Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07
   
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2018-04-16
IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-27
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This document appears ready to go forward. The only "issue" I have here might
end up being an editorial issue, but I list it as a Minor issue because it
might be substantive.

Major issues:

None.

Minor issues:

In the paragraph after Figure 3, it says, "and subsequent values are
monotonically increasing". I'm not sure I understand what that means. If 0 is
the highest priority, then 1 is a *lower* priority than 0, not an increasing
priority. If you are trying to say that the numeric value of the priority field
is increasing by 1 for each subsequent value, then "monotonically increasing"
is wrong; the sequence "0 2 5 36" is monotonically increasing. You'd say
instead, "and subsequent values increase by one". If all you mean is that
values start at 0 and go up from there, I think you should just delete the
entire phrase; it doesn't add anything and strikes me as confusing.

Nits/editorial comments:

Why are RFC 4086, RFC 8018, and ietf-ippm-metric-registry Informative
References instead of Normative? The uses appear to be normative.

I'm not clear why the examples were split between Section 6 and Appendix A;
seems like you could just use the long one in section 6 and explain only the
important bits. I also note that neither of them make any claims about
normativity: That is, most examples in documents I see always say something
like, "If there is a conflict between anything here and the syntax in the
model, the model wins." Is that not the case in these sorts of model documents?

Pet peeve: Except in Acknowledgements, I really don't like the use of "we" in
IETF documents (even though it's becoming more and more common). It's not clear
to whom it refers (the WG? the authors? the IETF?). In most places, it can be
replaced with "This document", or using passive voice (e.g., s/We define X as/X
is defined as). There are only 4 occurrences: Abstract, 1.1, 3, and 3.1. Easy
enough to change.

Note to shepherd: In the shepherding writeup, question 1 is not answered
correctly. This document is going for *Proposed* Standard, not *Internet*
Standard. Further, there is no explanation for why this should be a standards
track document (though I believe the answer is pretty straightforward). You
should go correct that. While you're at it, you can update answer 15, as that
nit was corrected.




   ___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07

[Mahesh Jethanandani]

Pete,

Thank for your review. I will address the remaining comments on the draft.

> On Apr 16, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Pete Resnick  wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> .
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2018-04-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-27
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document appears ready to go forward. The only "issue" I have here might
> end up being an editorial issue, but I list it as a Minor issue because it
> might be substantive.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> None.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> In the paragraph after Figure 3, it says, "and subsequent values are
> monotonically increasing". I'm not sure I understand what that means. If 0 is
> the highest priority, then 1 is a *lower* priority than 0, not an increasing
> priority. If you are trying to say that the numeric value of the priority 
> field
> is increasing by 1 for each subsequent value, then "monotonically increasing"
> is wrong; the sequence "0 2 5 36" is monotonically increasing. You'd say
> instead, "and subsequent values increase by one". If all you mean is that
> values start at 0 and go up from there, I think you should just delete the
> entire phrase; it doesn't add anything and strikes me as confusing.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Why are RFC 4086, RFC 8018, and ietf-ippm-metric-registry Informative
> References instead of Normative? The uses appear to be normative.

Ok. Will move them to Normative section.

> 
> I'm not clear why the examples were split between Section 6 and Appendix A;
> seems like you could just use the long one in section 6 and explain only the
> important bits. I also note that neither of them make any claims about
> normativity: That is, most examples in documents I see always say something
> like, "If there is a conflict between anything here and the syntax in the
> model, the model wins." Is that not the case in these sorts of model 
> documents?

We decided to split the examples between Section 6 and Appendix A primarily 
because we wanted to focus on describing parts of the configuration in Section 
6. We kept the examples smaller and added a description up front to describes 
them, so it was easy to follow them. They can also be incomplete, specially as 
it relates to mandatory nodes. 

The examples in the Appendix are more complete and can be used to test any 
implementation of the model. 

> 
> Pet peeve: Except in Acknowledgements, I really don't like the use of "we" in
> IETF documents (even though it's becoming more and more common). It's not 
> clear
> to whom it refers (the WG? the authors? the IETF?). In most places, it can be
> replaced with "This document", or using passive voice (e.g., s/We define X 
> as/X
> is defined as). There are only 4 occurrences: Abstract, 1.1, 3, and 3.1. Easy
> enough to change.

Ok. Will do.

Thanks.

> 
> Note to shepherd: In the shepherding writeup, question 1 is not answered
> correctly. This document is going for *Proposed* Standard, not *Internet*
> Standard. Further, there is no explanation for why this should be a standards
> track document (though I believe the answer is pretty straightforward). You
> should go correct that. While you're at it, you can update answer 15, as that
> nit was corrected.
> 
> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanand...@gmail.com

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07

[Pete Resnick]

Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2018-04-16
IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-27
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This document appears ready to go forward. The only "issue" I have here might
end up being an editorial issue, but I list it as a Minor issue because it
might be substantive.

Major issues:

None.

Minor issues:

In the paragraph after Figure 3, it says, "and subsequent values are
monotonically increasing". I'm not sure I understand what that means. If 0 is
the highest priority, then 1 is a *lower* priority than 0, not an increasing
priority. If you are trying to say that the numeric value of the priority field
is increasing by 1 for each subsequent value, then "monotonically increasing"
is wrong; the sequence "0 2 5 36" is monotonically increasing. You'd say
instead, "and subsequent values increase by one". If all you mean is that
values start at 0 and go up from there, I think you should just delete the
entire phrase; it doesn't add anything and strikes me as confusing.

Nits/editorial comments:

Why are RFC 4086, RFC 8018, and ietf-ippm-metric-registry Informative
References instead of Normative? The uses appear to be normative.

I'm not clear why the examples were split between Section 6 and Appendix A;
seems like you could just use the long one in section 6 and explain only the
important bits. I also note that neither of them make any claims about
normativity: That is, most examples in documents I see always say something
like, "If there is a conflict between anything here and the syntax in the
model, the model wins." Is that not the case in these sorts of model documents?

Pet peeve: Except in Acknowledgements, I really don't like the use of "we" in
IETF documents (even though it's becoming more and more common). It's not clear
to whom it refers (the WG? the authors? the IETF?). In most places, it can be
replaced with "This document", or using passive voice (e.g., s/We define X as/X
is defined as). There are only 4 occurrences: Abstract, 1.1, 3, and 3.1. Easy
enough to change.

Note to shepherd: In the shepherding writeup, question 1 is not answered
correctly. This document is going for *Proposed* Standard, not *Internet*
Standard. Further, there is no explanation for why this should be a standards
track document (though I believe the answer is pretty straightforward). You
should go correct that. While you're at it, you can update answer 15, as that
nit was corrected.


___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art