Early Review of draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-00
review-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-00-yangdoctors-early-moberg-2018-07-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-00
Requested rev. 00 (document currently at 05)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2018-06-30
Requested 2018-05-31
Requested by Toerless Eckert
Draft last updated 2018-07-20
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -00 by Carl Moberg (diff)
Comments
Dear Yang Doctors

Document authors request an early yang doctors review to understand what high level issues would need to be addressed that may be missed out, so as not to invest work into the yang parts of the document incorrectly. Given how the previous voucher document had Yang problems only discovered in auth48, i think early review is very prudent.
Assignment Reviewer Carl Moberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-00-yangdoctors-early-moberg-2018-07-20
Reviewed rev. 00 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2018-07-20

Review
review-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-00-yangdoctors-early-moberg-2018-07-20

I have reviewed this document as part of the YANG doctors directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These 
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the 
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews 
during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments 
just like any other last call comments.

This document includes two YANG modules:
 - ietf-cwt-voucher@2018-02-07.yang
 - ietf-cwt-voucher-request@2018-02-07.yang

These are relatively small modules consisting of a single grouping each, and are used to augment single leafs into a grouping from an external module (ietf-voucher).

A couple of nits:
- The modules use the 'cwt' acronym in their names, but that acronym is only spelled out in the Normative References section. Suggest spelling it out in the description field in the modules and in the draft itself.
- Both modules have the same top-level description. Suggest revising the wording to describe the specific content of each module such that they are unique.
- I would suggest running both modules through 'pyang -f yang' for consistent formatting. The diffs are related to whitespace, quotations and comments (including a modename in each module)
- Sections 6.2.1. and 6.3.1. both provide YANG tree diagrams of the groupings defined. These groupings are defined in RFC8366 and only one of the leafs are defined in the local document. It might be worth pointing this fact out for clarity.