Reviewer: Ebben Aries Review result: Ready 2 modules in this draft: - ietf-dots-signal-channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - iana-dots-signal-channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx YANG compiler errors or warnings (pyang 2.4.0, yanglint 1.9.2) - No compiler errors or warnings however pyang 2.4.0 is currently the only compiler verified to emit YANG sx:structure data in tree format. Instance data could not yet easily be validated given the current linters/compilers. Links to previous relevant reviews: - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-00-yangdoctors-early-aries-2020-09-23/ - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dots-telemetry-14-yangdoctors-lc-lindblad-2020-11-26/ Updates/comments since prior review ------------------------------------ While there is a -02 version of the draft posted since the YANG Doctor review request against -01, the updates reflect textual wording of the draft and YANG module contents have not changed thus this review encompasses the latest -02 version as well. Since the -00 version, the following previous review comments have now been addressed: - Textual wording in the draft around IPv4/IPv6 prefix lengths - The prefix for 'ietf-dots-signal-channel' is now updated to a more descriptive 'dots-signal' - Import prefixes are updated to reflect usage of the imported module prefix - Author email address corrections - The prefix for 'iana-dots-signal-channel' is now updated to a more descriptive 'iana-dots-signal' and thus this module now carries with it a revision bump Updated nodes: The 'lifetime' node has now been updated from a single 'int32' value to a union of uint32 and int32 with a range restriction. From a modeling standpoint for the uint32 value, while '0' is invalid in a request, it appears the status retrieval could very well still report '0' for a brief period of time thus assume this is the reason for not implementing a range restriction on the uint32 value as well indicating "1..4294967295"? Now, when this translates into CBOR representation, the wire protocol I will assume (Sorry just briefly researched this re: CBOR) will differentiate 2 separate types here so we don't run into -1 and 4294967295 both representing indefinite lifetime? While I share similar opinions to Jan's review in review-ietf-dots-telemetry-14-yangdoctors-lc-lindblad-2020-11-26 in relation to the draft and data structure definitions, I believe from a YANG doctor review standpoint, we are ready to move forward with this draft/module-set. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
