Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-20

Request Review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 28)
Type Last Call Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2020-08-24
Requested 2020-07-28
Requested by Joel Halpern
Authors Stephane Litkowski, Yingzhen Qu, Acee Lindem, Pushpasis Sarkar, Jeff Tantsura
Draft last updated 2020-08-24
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -09 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -20 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ladislav Lhotka 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-spring-sr-yang-20-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2020-08-24
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 20 (document currently at 28)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-08-24


I also did an early YANG Doctors review [1]. My comments regarding YANG module revisions and normative references are addressed in the current revision. The suggested naming changes were either accepted or, I assume, addressed in the WG and rejected (which is OK).

Compared to the previously reviewed revision -09, the current revision contains one additional YANG module: ietf-segment-routing-mpls. This module adheres to the same high standards as the previous two, and I discovered no issues with all of them.



- The title of Section 6 (States) still looks weird to me. My suggestion is to use "State Data" instead.

- The title of Section 8 should use plural "YANG Modules" because it contains three modules. It would also be helpful to introduce a subsection for each module.

- Due to the RFC line length limit, the example in Appendix A uses a line break inside a URI of a XML namespace declaration, which makes the XML invalid. This can be probably avoided by including the XML namespace declaration for "sr-cmn" in the top-level element, i.e.


  If not, it would be better to use conventions of RFC 8792.

- Assuming that the example is intended for human readers, it might be better to provide it in the JSON representation per RFC 7951.