Early Review of draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-10
Requested rev. 10 (document currently at 15)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2019-07-31
Requested 2019-07-10
Requested by Tarek Saad
Authors Tarek Saad, Kamran Raza, Rakesh Gandhi, Xufeng Liu, Vishnu Beeram
Draft last updated 2019-08-18
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -10 by Ebben Aries (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -14 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Gyan Mishra
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Derrell Piper (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ebben Aries
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-base-yang-10-yangdoctors-early-aries-2019-08-18
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/YsMhVU4YtOPzdsCOW3lSzUd74ZY
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 15)
Review result On the Right Track
Review completed: 2019-08-18


1 module in this draft:
- ietf-mpls@2019-02-24.yang

No YANG compiler errors or warnings (pyang 2.0.1, yanglint 1.1.40, confdc 6.6.3)

Module ietf-mpls@2019-02-24.yang:
- Remove WG Chairs from contact information per
- 'ietf-interfaces' import should reference RFC8343 rather
- Must clause for start/end-label is incorrect.  Would suggest moving this
  must statement underneath the `leaf end-label` as well:


  leaf end-label {
      type rt-types:mpls-label;
      must '. >= ../start-label' {
            "The end-label must be greater than or equal " +
            "to start-label";
      description "Label-block end";
- Use of 'state' container under '/routing/mpls/label-blocks/label-block/state'
  These nodes could sit as r/o nodes by the looks of it directly under the
  label-block list.  In addition, do these nodes need '-count' suffixes?
  Should they rather be of type `yang:counter32`?
  See: https://github.com/netmod-wg/FAQ/wiki/NMDA-Modelling-FAQ
- Is there any intention to define any surrounding features?

General comments/minor nits on the draft/modules:
- Section 1: s/feauture/feature/
- Section 2.1: s/the the/the/
- Section 2.1: 'labeled' vs. 'labelled'
- Section 2.4: s/followinig/following/
- Module line 354/367: This is for the 'active-route' action statement rather