Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Early Review/Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-08 Reviewer: Acee Lindem Review Date: 08/07/2025 IETF LC End Date: Already Over Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document contains a YANG data model for scheduling event, policies, services, or resources based on date and time. The module includes a set of reusable groupings which are designed to be applicable for scheduling purposes such as event, policy, services or resources based on date and time. It also defines groupings for validating requested schedules and reporting scheduling status. The document is very well written. However, I think that following that the recurrence model in RFC 5545 is overly complex and some of the more esoteric options should have been omitted. I doubt they will ever be used and, if needed, these could have been done in a separate augmentation. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: I have the following minor comments. 1. What is an out-of-date schedule compared to a finished schedule? 2. For recurrence-end, what does "inclusive" mean in this context. 3. "weekday" is a very confusing type as this term normally refers to the Monday through Friday. Why not day-of-week? 3. The distinction between "recurrence rule", "recurrence set", and "recurrence" is not clear and can be confusing in the node descriptions. Assure consistency given the context. I tried to remedy this in the nits but after starting down this path, I think the authors have a different intent. Perhaps the usage should be defined up front. 4. Unless I'm misunderstanding the frequency, it seems the period-end would also need to be constrained by the frequency and be less than the period-start? 5. For a recurrence rule, the frequency must be specified. If the interval is not specified, is it assumed to be 1? 6. For a recurrence specifying a duration, it would seem the duration would need to be less than the recurrence <frequenct, interval> otherwise the end of an instance could overlap the start of the next instance. 7. Why are the identifiers for the by.... scrunched together without hyphens? Why not by-second, by-hour, etc.? bysetpos is a terrible identifier. I don't think following the terminology in RFC 5545 was a wise decision. 8. What is a "time zone database"? This term should be defined or there should be a reference. Nits: I've attached some editorial suggestions. Thanks, Acee
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-08-orig.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- netmod@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to netmod-le...@ietf.org
