Subject: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:30:56 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG of the IETF.

        Title           : YANG Data Model for MPLS mLDP
        Authors         : Kamran Raza
                          Sowmya Krishnaswamy
                          Xufeng Liu
                          Santosh Esale
                          Loa Andersson
                          Jeff Tantsura
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-04.txt
	Pages           : 58
	Date            : 2018-07-16

Abstract:
   This document describes a YANG data model for Multi-Protocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) Multipoint Label Distribution Protocol (mLDP).  The
   mLDP data model augments the LDP data model.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:28:11 +0000

There is quite a lot wrong with this I-D in a similar vein to the issues
I just flagged for WGLC for draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang, namely

- Boiler plate rfc2119 lacks reference to RFC8174 but I see no must or
should in any case so maybe this is not needed
- NMDA is mentioned in the Introduction but it is usually called out in
the Abstract as well
- s.8 reads as if this I-D has open issues; is that intended, or do you
have future RFC in mind? If the latter, I suggest rewording it to say
the issues that are out of scope for this memo.
- no Note to RFC Editor asking them to replace XXXX with the number
assigned to this RFC
- no Note to RFC Editor asking them to replace the four dates in the
YANG modules with the date of publication
- no Copyright in the YANG modules
- WG Chairs listed in the modules which rfc6087bis says is not needed
- no YANG Version statement in the YANG modules
- no mention of the current YANG 1.1 RFC
- no reference statements for the import modules and their RFC are
missing from the Normative References of the I-D
- RFC4364 is listed as as reference in the YANG module but does not
appear in the I-D Normative References
- no Informative Reference to the Tree Diagrams RFC8340
- Security Considerations do not conform to rfc6087bis and lack the
Normative References that that calls for
- IANA Considerations fails to reference RFC7895 and RFC7950
- the representation of the IANA Considerations as boxes is unusual and,
for me, harder to understand than the usual list of lines

Uh huh; it is as if the rtgarea has a template for YANG modules with
things like this  wrong in it so each successive YANG Module I-D
reproduces much the same issues:-)

Tom Petch