Last Call Review of draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-07
review-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-07-rtgdir-lc-berger-2017-10-16-00
| Request | Review of | draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2017-10-11 | |
| Requested | 2017-09-13 | |
| Requested by | Alvaro Retana | |
| Authors | Qin Wu, Stephane Litkowski, Luis Tomotaki, Kenichi Ogaki | |
| Draft last updated | 2017-10-16 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Lou Berger
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Carlos Martínez (diff) Genart Last Call review of -07 by Jari Arkko (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff) |
|
| Comments | The IETF LC ends on Oct/11, which may put this document on the IESG Telechat the next day. There's not much room for extensions. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Lou Berger |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-07-rtgdir-lc-berger-2017-10-16 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 07 (document currently at 11) | |
| Review result | Has Issues | |
| Review completed: | 2017-10-16 |
Review
review-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-07-rtgdir-lc-berger-2017-10-16
Hello, 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 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir 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-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-07 Reviewer: Lou Berger Review Date: Oct 13 2017 IETF LC End Date: date-if-known Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I have some major concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: This document is intended to provide a technical correction to the syntactic flaws of the ietf-l3vpn-svc yang module defined in RFC 8049. The changes are straightforward and have been cleared by the YANG Doctor team with the one exception as discussed below. Major Issues: >From a strict reading of this document and the YANG Language definition (RFC6020 or RFC7950) this document violates the MUST clauses in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-11 insofar as that rfc8049bis has several definitions that are not compatible with those defined in rfc8049 for the ietf-l3vpn-svc yang module, yet the bis does not follow the requirement of RFC7950 to change the module name/identifier. In discussion on the netmod WG list, the point has been raised that this is acceptable as the module defined in rfc8049 should never have been published in the first place as it is syntactically broken. So there is a choice to be made, i.e., to either: (a) publish this document as is and note a special exception to the requirement of RFC7950 (an IETF consensus document), or (b) update/change the module identifier in this document to conform with RFC7950. I think who makes this decision is an IETF process call and I deffer to the IESG on this matter. Lou (as RtgDir reviewer, who also happens to co-chair the WG that has technical responsibility for rfc7950.)