Subject: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-stability-08

From: Ebben Aries via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 17:10:12 -0700

Reviewer: Ebben Aries
Review result: Ready with Nits

One of the simpler YD reviews since this draft contains only a single module
with a single r/o leaf augment to various other BFD module nodes.

1 module in this draft:
- [email-masked]

YANG compiler errors or warnings (pyang 2.4.0, yanglint 1.10.17, confdc 7.2.3.4)
- warning: RFC 8407: 3.1: The IETF Trust Copyright statement seems to be missing
  - Minor issue just due to slight wording adjustment from copyright info
    normally used in the draft/RFC itself
    https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/tlp-5/

Module [email-masked]:
- Contact information should follow formatting seen in other published
  modules.  Just some minor cleanup/readjustments here.
- Various augments will augment the respective 'session-statistics' container
  however for 'bfd-lag:member-links/micro-bfd-ipv4',
  'bfd-lag:member-links/micro-bfd-ipv6' and 'bfd-mpls:sessions' these augments
  sit in parallel to that container.  Is there any reason this is not
  consistent?

General comments on the draft/modules:
- Section 7.2: It is stated the document registers "2" YANG modules when it is
  infact only a single module

Overall, just minor nits and view as ready from a YANG doctor review
standpoint once the above is addressed

---

From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 10:11:05 -1000

Hi Ebben,

Thanks first of all for the review.

> On Mar 21, 2021, at 2:10 PM, Ebben Aries via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Ebben Aries

I cut and pasted the text from ’pyang —ietf-help’ and it still gives me the error. Go figure!

>  modules.  Just some minor cleanup/readjustments here.

Do you e-mail addresses of the authors? If so, they were written as such to prevent online email extractors from extracting email addresses.

>  sit in parallel to that container.  Is there any reason this is not

Good catch. Have added a path to “session-statistics” container.

  augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" +
          "rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-lag:lag/" +
          "bfd-lag:sessions/bfd-lag:session/bfd-lag:member-links/" +
          "bfd-lag:micro-bfd-ipv4/bfd-lag:session-statistics" {
>  infact only a single module

Fixed.

> standpoint once the above is addressed

Thanks

Mahesh Jethanandani
[email-masked]

---

From: Ebben Aries <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:43:31 -0600

> I cut and pasted the text from ’pyang —ietf-help’ and it still gives me the

The following should be the correct wording to pass the ietf checks:

--- yang/[email-masked]	2021-03-29 17:31:29.494394915 -0600
+++ yang/[email-masked]	2021-03-29 17:31:23.152419684 -0600
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@
      a per session count for BFD packets that are lost.

      Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
-     the document authors.  All rights reserved.
+     authors of the code.  All rights reserved.
      Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
      without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
      to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD

$ pyang --ietf-help

Validates the module or submodule according to the IETF rules found
in RFC 8407.

The module's or submodule's description statement must contain the
following text:

     Copyright (c) <year> IETF Trust and the persons identified as
     authors of the code.  All rights reserved.
...

> Do you e-mail addresses of the authors? If so, they were written as such to
> prevent online email extractors from extracting email addresses.
> 

Following RFC8407 includes the 'WG List' as <mailto:[email-masked]>
followed by an 'Editor:' block with Names/emails listed in the above
format as well.  Obfuscating email addresses as you have it (not sure
I've seen any other modules attempt this) is unlikely to provide any
benefit (These same email addresses are also listed in the draft/RFC
document itself unobfuscated)

Thx

/ebben