I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2010-04-06 IETF LC End Date: 2010-04-09 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. There are a few minor issues that might should be considered prior to publication. Major issues: None. Minor issues: -- Section 3, model namespace definition: (Same comment for section 4) Will the registered namespace really include "DRAFT-06"? Should this be replaced with the RFC number? -- description for counter32: "A default statement should not be used for attributes with a type value of counter32." Should that be a normative SHOULD NOT? -- object-identifier description, 3rd paragraph: Does this imply a normative requirement that one SHOULD NOT use this to model an SMIv2 OI? (and SHOULD instead use object-identifier-128)? -- Section 4, domain-name, description, paragraph 2: "...systems that want to store host names in schema nodes using the domain-name type are recommended to adhere to this stricter standard to ensure interoperability." should "recommended" be normative? Nits/editorial comments: -- Section 2, 1st paragraph: Can you provide a reference for SMIv2 (I assume RFC 2578)? Also, please expand it on first mention. -- zero-based-counter32 description, 2nd paragraph: Plurality mismatch between "nodes" and "it". Suggest s/"Schema nodes"/"A Schema node" -- date-and-time, pattern and description: Which is the normative description for date-and-time? The ABNF in the description, or the pattern attribute? I assume the second, but fear the presence of ABNF will make others assume the first. (Comment repeats for zero-based-counter64) -- zero-based-counter32 description, 3rd paragraph: ben: s/"wrap it"/"wrap, it" (Comment repeats for zero-based-counter64) -- section 5: The namespaces do not match the text (see comments on the module namespace strings in sections 3 and 4) -- section 9.2: idnits complains about unreferenced entries in this section. I'm not sure what to do about it, or if it matters at all, since they are referenced from the model itself. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf