Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-23

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 29)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-07-17
Requested 2019-07-02
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Derek Yeung, Yingzhen Qu, Zhaohui Zhang, Ing-Wher Chen, Acee Lindem
Draft last updated 2019-07-18
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Last Call review of -09 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -23 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -23 by Ravi Singh (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -23 by Erik Kline (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -23 by Stefan Santesson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ravi Singh
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-yang-23-rtgdir-lc-singh-2019-07-18
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 23 (document currently at 29)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-07-18



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ‚Äč

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-23.txt
Reviewer: Ravi Singh
Review Date: 7/18/2019
Intended Status: Standards Track

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.

This is a very comprehensively written document.
However, reading through it is a bit laborious due to the really large # of config and operational items described.
So, my review was primarily aimed at readability rather than correctness of the YANG syntax.

Specific comments/queries:
1.       What is the reasoning for sticking the multi-topology sub-container(s) at the same levels as area instead of at the level of sub-containers under area(s)?
2.       Pg 23: why both (prefix "rt-types";) and (prefix "iana-rt-types";) ?
3.       Pg 25-28: "feature two-part-metric {" and "feature key-chain {" might be readjusted in order of listing to make it the same as that in section 2.4 for a bit of enhanced readability.