For details on Routing Area QA reviews, see: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDirDocQa Name: draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-02 I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: October 10, 2015 This document is close to ready for working group last call. Major issues: None. Minor Issues: I would suggest that the introduction needs to include a description, longer than that in the abstract, of the purpose of the document. If the document purpose is as stated in the abstract, to provide requirements to NetConf and NetMod working groups regarding ephemeral state, then section 2 should have a bit more explanatory text, as the requirements there are explicitly not abotu ephemeral state. It may be as simple as stating that these requirements are repeated hear to provide context for the reader. Or whatever explanation does apply for why they are here. On section 3.2 requirement 02, the text prohibiting reference from non-ephemeral to ephemeral state needs some clarification. First, it should be clear that this is a requirement on behavior outside of I2RS, as I2RS can not refer to non-ephemeral state. Also, it seems likely that such incorrect references could be attempted at either model definition time or NetConf request application time. As such "validation error" may be too specific a description of the errors needed. Requirement 3.4 is written as if writeable / non-writeable were a new requirement to NetConf. I believe what is wanted here is only that there must be indications in the model of ephemeral elements, and that it is writeable. If there is a need for non-writeable ephemeral elements, that should be described seperately. At this reading, I do not see a need for such. Section 3.6 would benefit from an introductory sentence indicating that these requirements are included because they have an impact on viable solutions to the ephemeral state requirements, although they themselves are more general requirements applying to I2RS operations. Given that the design team is looking at a model which they describe as a limited panes of glass model, it seems that if section 4 is retained (as it provides useful context) section 4.2 needs to be modified to be clear as to what solution is being rejected. Editorial Issues: Not noted