Hi Mach, Thanks for the comments, we will address all of these.
Specifically for the abstract, I propose changing the text to: " This document defines a YANG data model for the management of the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP). It extends the basic ARP functionality contained in the ietf-ip YANG data model, defined in [RFC8344], to provide management of optional ARP features and statistics. The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture defined in [RFC8342]. " Thanks, Rob On 01/08/2018 09:48, Mach Chen wrote:
Hello I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02 The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02 Reviewer: Mach Chen Review Date: 01 August 2018 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary The draft defines a YANG model for ARP configurations, which covers static ARP, ARP caching, proxy ARP and gratuitous ARP. The model is very short and the content is straightforward. It can be a reasonable start point for WG adoption call. General comments: Although I am not a native English speaker, I also feel that the document needs some enhancements on its wording and grammar to make it more clean and readable. For example, the following text needs some rewording or may be removed. Abstract: "The data model performs as a guideline for configuring ARP capabilities on a system. It is intended this model be used by service providers who manipulate devices from different vendors in a standard way." Specific comments: 1. It's lack of the IANA section. 2. Section 3.1 and Section 3.3, suggest to add relevant references to ARP caching and gratuitous ARP. 3. import ietf-interfaces { prefix if; description "A Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) compatible version of the ietf-interfaces module is required."; } import ietf-ip { prefix ip; description "A Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) compatible version of the ietf-ip module is required."; } Lack of the reference RFCs. And the descriptions seem not appropriate, some of other descriptions in this document have the similar issue, suggest to revise those descriptions. In addition, idnits tool shows: == Missing Reference: 'RFC826' is mentioned on line 77, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6536' is mentioned on line 583, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341) == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis' is defined on line 606, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC0826' is defined on line 636, but no explicit reference was found in the text Best regards, Mach
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
