[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Sun, 28 April 2013 08:31 UTC

From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg.all@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:31:05 +0300
Message-ID: <019901ce43ea$bbd575a0$338060e0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_019A_01CE4403.E1239800"
Thread-Index: Ac5D6pKryX0MWBh9SKaAMkeLEbN6Nw==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10
Precedence: list

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2013-4-28

IETF LC End Date: 2013-5-3

IESG Telechat date: 2013-5-16

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

 

1.       I had some problem understanding the "location" leaf. Section 3.2
has it as a string and says that "The device uses the location string to
identify the physical or logical entity that the configuration applies to".
I am not sure how you identify physical location having no definition of the
mapping. I saw the examples in Appendix E and it looked more to me as
logical mapping but not physical since it attaches a name to something in
the device but I am not clear how you know what it is physically in the
device. If the name 0-n or n/m are real physical entities, I think that it
should be specified some place. 

 

 

Nits/editorial comments:

1.	In the introduction section maybe add to the first sentence a
reference to RFC6244 with some text.
2.	In section 2 are the" must" and "should"  used as described in
RFC2119, if yes need capital letters
3.	In section 3.1 "It is optional in the data model,  but if the type
represents a physical interface, it is mandatory", suggest having RFC2119
language "It is OPTIONAL in the data model,  but if the type represents a
physical interface, it is MUST be specified"

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-netmod-… Roni Even
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-net… Roni Even
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-net… Martin Bjorklund
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-net… Martin Bjorklund
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-net… Roni Even
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-net… Jari Arkko