Paul, thanks for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa
> On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the > IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-05 > Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat > Review Date: 2018-02-19 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-19 > IESG Telechat date: ? > > Summary: > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be > fixed before publication. > > Disclaimer: > > I conducted this review without any knowledge of YANG modeling. So the sort > of review I can do is superficial. > > Issues: > > Major: 0 > Minor: 0 > Nits: 5 > > Other: > > This is probably just my lack of understanding of this technology, but in > section 4.3 do MEPs only have identity in the context of a MA? That is what > this model seems to show. I would expect that MEPs have existence independent > of MAs, and hence would be modeled independently within a domain. > > (1) NIT: General > > Throughout the document I noticed a number of missing articles. I am not > going to call these out because it would make this review very long and > tedious. The IESG editor will presumably fix these. > > (2) NIT: Abstract: > > OAM should be expanded in the abstract. I realize it is expanded in the > title, but the abstract is likely to be seen in contexts where the title > isn't present. > > (3) NIT: Section 6.2: > > This section says: > > For Base Mode of operation we > propose to use MEP-ID zero (0) as the default MEP-ID. > > This language might make sense in an early draft, but isn't very suitable for > a document on the verge of being an RFC. (Who is this being proposed to? Who > will decide?) > > (4) NIT: Section 7.1: Generic YANG Model extension for TRILL OAM > > The following is not a complete sentence: > > In the RPC extension, the continuity- > check and path-discovery RPC are extended with TRILL specific. > > This needs to say "with TRILL specific *something*". > > (5) NIT: Reported by IdNits tool: > > The idnits tool reports a number issues and warnings. Some are spurious, but > the following seem to require attention so that these warnings are no longer > generated: > > Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ** The abstract seems to contain references > ([I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores]), which it shouldn't. Please > replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. > > > Miscellaneous warnings: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if > it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. > > (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the > ID-Checklist requires). > -- The document date (February 6, 2018) is 13 days in the past. Is this > intentional? > > > Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07 > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02 > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
