Subject: [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04.txt

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:08:51 +0000

Document: draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04.txt
Reviewer: Acee Lindem
Review Date: June 18, 2019
Review Type: Working Group Last Call
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary: Not ready for publication

Modules: "[email-masked]"

Tech Summary: The model is logically structured and seems to fulfill its
intended purpose. The "Overview" section defines the usage, context, and
usage of the model, i.e., it is limited to the NSF capability registration 
interface. However, the draft/model is very rough and not ready for working 
group last call. It seems that it has not gotten adequate review by the chairs
and other members of the I2NSF Working Group. 

Major Comments:

 1. The "Security Considerations" in section 8 do not conform to the
    recommended template in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-
    guidelines>

 2. The document is missing XML or JSON examples. 

Minor Comments: 

 1. Section 3.1 should reference RFC8340 rather than attempting to
    include tree diagram formatting semantics.

 2. Much of the text is very hard to read and awkwardly worded. There 
    are some instances of sentence fragments. I starting trying to 
    remedy this but found I was rewriting the entire draft and, in 
    many cases, I wasn't sure my edits matched the original intent. I'll
    send the attached diff with suggested edits to the authors - it was too
    big to send to IETF lists. 

 3. "iicapa" is a poor choice for default model prefix - I suggest 
    "nsfcap". It is just as concise but actually expands to something
     meaningful. 

 4. Similar to the text in the narrative sections of the draft, the text in the
     YANG model description statements is very awkwardly worded.

 5. What are the references for the ipv4-sameip and ipv4-geoip conditions?

 6. Add reference for egress-action-capa. 

 7. RFC 2460 is obsoleted by RFC 8200.

 8. Suggest hyphenation of identifiers ipv4-same-ip, ipv4-geo-ip, and
    ipv6-ip-opts.

 9. Suggest hyphenation of anti-virus and anti-ddos both in identifiers
    and in the text.  

10. Suggest providing a definitions for absolute and periodic time. 

11. The References do not include all the RFCs referenced by YANG 
       model reference statements.

Thanks,
Acee