Subject: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 04:04:59 -0800

Reviewer: Robert Wilton
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.

I've already reviewed the previous revision of this document as part of WG LC,
and any significant comments have already been addressed.  What remains are
minor nits, that would probably be spotted/addressed by the RFC editor, and I
leave it to the authors discretion as to whether/how they address these:

1. It may be helpful for the introduction to state that the module conforms to
NMDA (from YANG guidelines section 3.5).  I.e. add the following text +
reference.

      The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network
     Management Datastore Architecture defined in
     RFC 8342.

2. Paragraph 4.1, perhaps "will be" => "is"?

3. Section 4.3, "removed with using" => "removed using"

4. The YANG module itself:

4i) NetMod => NETMOD (two places)

4ii) The RFC 2119 boilerplate should probably be updated to cover RFC 8174.

4iii) Line length is a bit long in places.  I checked using pyang against 69
chars and got this, so at least line 89 should be fixed (but the RFC editor
will also fix this): [email-masked]:56: warning: line length
72 exceeds 69 characters [email-masked]:57: warning: line
length 71 exceeds 69 characters [email-masked]:63: warning:
line length 71 exceeds 69 characters [email-masked]:64:
warning: line length 71 exceeds 69 characters
[email-masked]:86: warning: line length 72 exceeds 69
characters [email-masked]:89: warning: line length 86 exceeds
69 characters

4iv) Possibly add ", but they have no operational effect" to the end of the
description of masked-tag.  Although, it is pretty obvious to me that they
would just be ignored.

5) Section 6.
  - Suggest "It's" => "It is", "2" => "two", "3" => "three".
  - Suggest "is classifying modules in only a logical manner" => "only
  classifies modules in a logical manner"

6) Section 7.1.
 - Since these are guidelines, I suggest "can" => "MAY".

7) Section 8.1.
 - I note that this section uses "SHOULD", and section 3.4 just says reserved. 
 Should section 3.4 also use RFC2119 language to be aigned at all?

---

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:59:36 -0500

Hi Robert,

I've adopted all your suggestion.

Thanks for the review!

Chris.

> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:04 AM, Robert Wilton <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Robert Wilton