Hey Joe, Thanks for the review. See replies inline. On 1/6/18, 3:30 PM, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Reviewer: Joe Clarke >Review result: Ready > >I am completing this review as a representative of the ops directorate. >This >document describes an NMDA-compliant version of the ietf-routing family >of YANG >modules that obsoletes the revisions in RFC8022. Overall, I feel this >document >is ready, with some very minor spelling nits. > >The only substantive comment I have is in the comments ahead of the >now-obsolete state branches. Currently, these comments just state >"Obsolete >State Data". I wonder if it would make sense to add a bit more text here >to >reference why these branches are now obsolete. Perhaps a reference to >the NMDA >document would be beneficial. How about something like: The subsequent data nodes are obviated and obsoleted by the “Network Management Architecture” as described in draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.” > >Spelling-wise, search for Managment. There are four instances in the YANG >modules themselves. Obviously, these should be "Management". Sigh - thanks, I’ve fixed. > >Another minor nit I noticed (and this is likely an issue with pyang) is >that >when using a grouping, the YANG tree lists nodes like routing-state -> >router-id with a '+' instead of a 'o' (i.e., indicating obsolete). Not a >big >deal since the parent container is obsolete. Good catch. Due to some subsetting and formatting, these were not regenerated. I will fix. > >One comment I have is that the imports clauses here definitely point out >a need >to be able to import by some kind of version that will allow to set a >minimum >requirement (e.g., import by semantic version). Having comments such as >are in >the modules now are not machine-consumable, and will likely cause >operational >challenges for those that do not pay attention. We discussed this on the NETMOD list and it is also undesirable to hard code a version. It would be good to have “greater than or equal to” semantics. Thanks, Acee >