Subject: [L3sm] Review of draft-l3vpn-service-yang-00

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 10:31:34 +0000

Hi:
I did a pass over the document.
Please find below my review for draft-l3vpn-service-yang-00.txt. See attached.

<chair hat on>

I believe that there is a need for a revised ID before going for adoption as WG draft in order to clarify a number of questions and fix a few more.

<chair hat off>
My comments are almost entirely editorial / nits / typos suggestions.
See my note in abstraction, Section 8 and Section 14.

Two major comments I want to highlight here are:

1.       The YANG module code is not completely compliant with RFC6087, there are a lot of RFC formatting warnings in the YANG module code, please fix it based on my suggested changes in the section 8 or you use YANG review tool to fix it. The YANG review tool is available at:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/yang-review-tools#

2. This document doesn't satisfy all ID nits. Potential problems detected by idnits
are 3 errors and 13 warnings as follows:
  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There are 37 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 25 characters in excess of 72.

  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC4364], [RFC4110]), which
     it shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
     documents in question.

  == There are 28 instances of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4
     addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should
     be changed.

  == There are 21 instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the
     document.  If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed
     to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 5735 (or successor): 192.0.2.x,
     198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 239 has weird spacing: '...site-id    lea...'

  == Line 241 has weird spacing: '...site-id    lea...'

  == Line 292 has weird spacing: '...et-site    lea...'

  == Line 342 has weird spacing: '...-rw vpn    lea...'

  == Line 348 has weird spacing: '...-rw lan    ine...'

  == (1 more instance...)

  == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC
     2119 boilerplate text.

  -- The document date (February 23, 2015) is 70 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
     sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and
     '<CODE ENDS>' lines.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6020' is defined on line 3448, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6241' is defined on line 3452, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6242' is defined on line 3456, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6536' is defined on line 3462, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4110

     Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 13 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.

-Qin