Subject: [Anima] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-00

From: Carl Moberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 06:31:10 -0700

Reviewer: Carl Moberg
Review result: Ready with Nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the YANG doctors directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document includes two YANG modules:
 - [email-masked]
 - [email-masked]

These are relatively small modules consisting of a single grouping each, and
are used to augment single leafs into a grouping from an external module
(ietf-voucher).

A couple of nits:
- The modules use the 'cwt' acronym in their names, but that acronym is only
spelled out in the Normative References section. Suggest spelling it out in the
description field in the modules and in the draft itself. - Both modules have
the same top-level description. Suggest revising the wording to describe the
specific content of each module such that they are unique. - I would suggest
running both modules through 'pyang -f yang' for consistent formatting. The
diffs are related to whitespace, quotations and comments (including a modename
in each module) - Sections 6.2.1. and 6.3.1. both provide YANG tree diagrams of
the groupings defined. These groupings are defined in RFC8366 and only one of
the leafs are defined in the local document. It might be worth pointing this
fact out for clarity.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 17:58:16 -0400

> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the

Thank you!

    > A couple of nits:
    > - The modules use the 'cwt' acronym in their names, but that acronym is
    > only spelled out in the Normative References section. Suggest spelling
    > it out in the description field in the modules and in the draft
    > itself.

We changed it to constrained in a version which is probably not yet
published, because it was only change.

    > - Both modules have the same top-level description. Suggest revising
    > the wording to describe the 
    > specific content of each module such that they are unique.
    > I would suggest 
    > running both modules through 'pyang -f yang' for consistent
    > formatting. The diffs are related to whitespace, quotations and
    > comments (including a modename 
    > in each module)

Generally, my experience is that one has to get the wrapping of the YANG
module "short" enough so that it does not exceed the .txt format output
when embedded in the RFC.  Does pyang -f yang help here?

    >  - Sections 6.2.1. and 6.3.1. both provide YANG tree diagrams of
    > the groupings defined. These groupings are defined in RFC8366 and only
    > one of the leafs are defined in the local document. It might be worth
    > pointing this fact out for clarity.

okay, I'll add a note about that.

https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/commit/6d274f13e3c553efc714c0f06c195f924ad880ff

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [