I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-04-06
IETF LC End Date: 2010-04-09
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.
There are a few minor issues that might should be considered prior to
publication.
Major issues: None.
Minor issues:
-- Section 3, model namespace definition:
(Same comment for section 4)
Will the registered namespace really include "DRAFT-06"? Should this be
replaced with the RFC number?
-- description for counter32: "A default statement should not be used for
attributes with a type value of counter32."
Should that be a normative SHOULD NOT?
-- object-identifier description, 3rd paragraph:
Does this imply a normative requirement that one SHOULD NOT use this to model
an SMIv2 OI? (and SHOULD instead use object-identifier-128)?
-- Section 4, domain-name, description, paragraph 2: "...systems that want to
store host names in
schema nodes using the domain-name type are recommended to
adhere to this stricter standard to ensure interoperability."
should "recommended" be normative?
Nits/editorial comments:
-- Section 2, 1st paragraph:
Can you provide a reference for SMIv2 (I assume RFC 2578)? Also, please expand
it on first mention.
-- zero-based-counter32 description, 2nd paragraph:
Plurality mismatch between "nodes" and "it". Suggest s/"Schema nodes"/"A Schema
node"
-- date-and-time, pattern and description:
Which is the normative description for date-and-time? The ABNF in the
description, or the pattern attribute? I assume the second, but fear the
presence of ABNF will make others assume the first.
(Comment repeats for zero-based-counter64)
-- zero-based-counter32 description, 3rd paragraph:
ben: s/"wrap it"/"wrap, it"
(Comment repeats for zero-based-counter64)
-- section 5:
The namespaces do not match the text (see comments on the module namespace
strings in sections 3 and 4)
-- section 9.2:
idnits complains about unreferenced entries in this section. I'm not sure what
to do about it, or if it matters at all, since they are referenced from the
model itself.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf