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

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:01:45 -0700

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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.

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:29:15 +0000

Hi Pete, for your Minor Issue:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Pete Resnick
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 12:02 PM
...
> entire phrase; it doesn't add anything and strikes me as confusing.
[acm] I seem to recollect that we arrived at this sentence after 
explaining the inverse relationship between values and priorities along the way.
Surely, someone has done this before, and co-authors welcome other
concise text suggestions.

OLD
   The client container holds a list (mode-preference-chain) which
   specifies the Mode values according to their preferred order of use
   by the operator of this Control-Client, including the authentication
   and encryption Modes.  Specifically, mode-preference-chain lists the
   mode and its corresponding priority, expressed as a 16-bit unsigned
   integer, where zero is the highest priority and subsequent values are
   monotonically increasing.

NEW
   The client container holds a list (mode-preference-chain) which
   specifies the Mode values according to their preferred order of use
   by the operator of this Control-Client, including the authentication
   and encryption Modes.  Specifically, mode-preference-chain lists the
   mode and its corresponding priority, expressed as a 16-bit unsigned
   integer, where zero is the highest priority and subsequent integers 
   increase by one.

Does that do it? 
Al

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:03:56 -0500

I am fine with that, but good idea to check with others who actually 
have to implement the document. :-)

Thanks for taking care of this.

pr

---

From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:38:23 -0700

Pete,

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

> On Apr 16, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick

Ok. Will move them to Normative section.

> 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. 

> is defined as). There are only 4 occurrences: Abstract, 1.1, 3, and 3.1. Easy

Ok. Will do.

Thanks.

> should go correct that. While you're at it, you can update answer 15, as that

Mahesh Jethanandani
[email-masked]

---

From: Nalini J Elkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 23:14:28 +0000 (UTC)

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 <[email-masked]>
 To: [email-masked] 
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
 Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 9:01 AM
 Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07
   
Reviewer: Pete Resnick

Summary:

Major issues:

None.

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: