Tom,
Thanks for the clarification. I'll fix this up.
Thanks,
Rob
On 03/08/2018 10:04, tom petch wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Wilton" <[email protected]>
To: "tom petch" <[email protected]>; "Mach Chen"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 12:06 PM
On 02/08/2018 11:46, tom petch wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mach Chen" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 2:58 AM
Hi Rob,
Looks good to me!
Well it would if we were allowed to have [References] in the
Abstract
which we are not allowed to have:-)
OK, I can remove those. But the NMDA one I copied verbatim from the
abstract in RFC 8343 ;-)
Um, no. Let me try again. RFC8343 has
The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342.
which is fine.
For this I-D, you propose
The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture defined in [RFC8342].
and it is the [ ] that I see as a problem. Abstracts, like YANG
Modules, must be plain text so that they can exist independently of an
RFC which means that XML/HTML type anchors are not allowed, and I read
the [ ] as reflecting an underlying anchor, which needs changing to
plain text.
Tom Petch
Thanks,
Rob
Tom Petch
Best regards,
Mach
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 11:37 PM
To: Mach Chen <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
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
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
