Extending YANG with Language Abstractions
RFC 6095

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2010-12-15)
No email
send info
s/suggests to enhance/suggests enhancing/

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

Comment (2010-12-16)
No email
send info
I like this extension to YANG, but I haven't reviewed it in enough details to vote Yes.

(Tim Polk) No Objection

Comment (2010-12-15)
No email
send info
I would like to know why the authors chose not register the yang module in Appendix B.

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

Comment (2010-12-15)
No email
send info
This document defines what seems like a worthwhile experiment. 

Overall, the specification does not always clearly explain the relationship between this extension and YANG itself (e.g., by relating things like complex types to particular extension points in RFC 6020), the text is sometimes difficult to understand (e.g., the document does not provide very detailed justifications for various design decisions, and there are numerous grammatical errors), and the document is sometimes poorly organized (e.g., often there are no introductory paragraphs before lists and no explanations of the tables, which seem to be merely stuck in the middle of the text without any context). These problems could be fixed if and when the experiment is completed and a follow-up specification is proposed on the standards track, but I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time to fix them now.

On the other hand, the document provides many examples, thus helping the reader to understand the proposed extensions.

Here are several more concrete comments...

1. The following text is a bit presumptuous:

   After successful usage this
   experimental specification can be republished at IETF as a proposed
   standard possibly as part of a future version of YANG.

I suggest the following:

   If this experimental specification results in successful usage,
   it is possible that the protocol defined herein could be updated
   to incorporate implementation and deployment experience, then 
   pursued on the standards track, perhaps as part of a future version 
   of YANG.

2. In Section 1.2, the text does not explain that the bullet points are examples and therefore not exhaustive.

3. No reference is provided for the "TM Forum SID".

4. In Section 4, please make sure that the registrations provide all information in one place (e.g., it's not appropriate to point to the "Authors' Addresses" block for the Registrant Contact). 

5. The namespaces are mostly of the form "http://example.com/*", but it appears that they might be intended for wider use (not merely as examples). If so, I suggest using URNs in the ietf tree, or more stable URLs.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection