Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2018-01-04
Requested 2017-12-07
Requested by Susan Hares
Other Reviews Rtgdir Early review of -05 by John Scudder (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -10 by Derrell Piper
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Stewart Bryant
Review State Completed
Reviewer Ebben Aries
Review review-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09-yangdoctors-early-aries-2018-01-18
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/VClU_kAndmgWlqQIiTyh56ORy6Y
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 10)
Review result On the Right Track
Draft last updated 2018-01-18
Review completed: 2018-01-18


1 module in this draft:
- ietf-i2rs-rib@2017-12-05.yang

No YANG validation errors or warnings (from pyang 1.7.3 and yanglint 0.14.59)

0 examples are provided in this draft (section 3.12 of

Module ietf-i2rs-rib@2017-12-05.yang:
- yang-version statement missing - should be 1.1
- prefix 'iir' is recommended for this module, would 'rib' suffice better?
- import "ietf-inet-types" should reference RFC 6991 per (not as a comment)
- import "ietf-interfaces" should reference RFC 7223 per
- import "ietf-yang-types" should reference RFC 6991 per
- Since this module imports "ietf-interfaces", a normative references must be
  added per
- prefix "if" in the import "ietf-interfaces" can remove quotes to remain
  consistent with other imports
- Remove WG Chairs from contact information per
- Module description must contain most recent copyright notice per
- Module description should contain note to RFC Ed. and placeholder reference
  to RFC when assigned
- Add placeholder reference and note to RFC Ed. for RFC when assigned
- Security Considerations should be updated to reflect new template at
- Section 1.2 should be replaced with reference to
  draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02 rather (as-is in other i2rs YANG
  drafts in progress) per
- This module contains '12' features.  While it is understood the purpose of
  these features in the module, take precaution as to complexity for clients
  if they need to understand >= quantity of features per module in use on a
- A few comments exist that are either unecessary or redundant.  Encode the
  comment intent rather in description fields if need be.
- Per NMDA, which datastores are targeted for the module?  Will all RPC
  operations be acting upon the dynamic/ephemeral datastore?  It is not clear
  to me if the intention is to be persistent or ephemeral

General comments/Nits:
- references to 'def' could be expanded out to 'definition'
- references to 'decap' could be expanded out to 'decapsulation' for
  readability (across definitions and descriptions)
- Follow consistent capitalization of 'RIB' throughout document text.  Mixed
  use of 'Rib' and 'rib' exists (Outside of YANG node lowercase definitions).
- Is it necessary to prefix all nodes under the nexthop container with
- Section 2.5 - route-add RPC - text mentions it is required that the nh-add
  RPC be called as a pre-requisite however if the nh already exists and the
  nexthop-id is known, this should not be necessary.  In addition, the text
  reads 'or return' which should rather be a result of querying the
  appropriate node in the data tree.
- In 'IANA Considerations' - s/This document requests to register/This
  document registers/