Looking at -10, the version that is in Last Call, I see some YANG issues
(still) outstanding.
" This document defines a YANG [RFC6020][RFC6991] data model"
- RFC6020 is YANG 1.0 not 1.1 - I think there needs to be a reason not
to use the current version 1.1
- There is no mention of the status of this vis-a-vis NMDA. I would
like to see that stated
- And RFC6991 is an odd reference for YANG. since it is data types; not
off the wall, but seems odd
1.2 Guidelines on tree diagrams can be found in Section 3 of
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].
-YANG Guidelines now call for this to be an Informative Reference, not a
Normative one
2.2. Routing Instance and Rib
- /Rib/RIB/
3. YANG Modules
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-i2rs-rib@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
- The date will need updating at time of publication and a Note to the
RFC
Editor is helpful here
" namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2rs-rib";
// replace with iana namespace when assigned "
second line seems unwanted
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix if;
reference "RFC 7223";
}
- RFC7223 has been superseded by 7223bis
And the referenced I-D/RFC needs to appear in the Reference
section of this I-D - Normative I would suggest - along with a citation
somewhere in the text part of this I-D (lest you are warned about an
unused Reference).
" Copyright (c) <2018> IETF Trust and the persons
identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved."; "
- This looks inadequate to me; see for example
draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model
for a more comprehensive one
revision "2018-02-12" {
- as before, a note to the RFC Editor is helpful
// RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove
// this note
- I see no XXXX to be replaced here
"leaf hop-limit {
type uint8;
description
"The hop limit the header.";
"
Something seems to be missing from the description
description "NvGRE can use eigher IPv4 or IPv6 header for
encapsulation.";
- perhaps /gher/ther/
- The module has few reference clauses and when I see something
capitalised, e.g.
leaf ip-rpf-check {
"Each RIB can be optionally associated with a
ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK
I suspect that a reference is required
Some, but not many, of these issues are fixed in a not-submitted version
I have been sent, but that version introduces some fresh issues so I
have stayed with the vesion in Last Call..
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 6:23 PM
> The IESG has received a request from the Interface to the Routing
System WG
> (i2rs) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for
Routing
> Information Base (RIB)'
> <draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2018-03-30. Exceptionally, comments may
be
> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of
> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
> This document defines a YANG data model for Routing Information
Base
> (RIB) that aligns with the I2RS RIB information model.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model/ballot/
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
