Subject: [netmod] RtgDir review: Review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05.txt

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:09:36 -0800

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG
review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is
to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about
the Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs,
it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other
IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them
through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05.txt
Reviewer: Stig Venaas
Review Date: 2018-01-29
IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-07
Intended Status: Best Current Practice

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
The draft is well written and ready for publication except for perhaps
two nits. My YANG skills are a bit limited though, so it is possible
that I may have missed issues.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.

Nits:
In the introduction it says:
   Today's common practice is to include the definition of the syntax
   used to represent a YANG module in every document that provides a
   tree diagram.  This practice has several disadvantages and the
   purpose of the document is to provide a single location for this
              ^^^^
   definition.  It is not the intent of this document to restrict future
   changes, but rather to ensure such changes are easily identified and
   suitably agreed upon.

It would be better to say "this document".

In section 2 it says:
   A module is identified by "module:" followed the module-name.

In the introduction [RFC7223] Section 3 is given as an example
tree diagram, but this does not start with "module:". Would
another example be better? It might also be good to have a
richer example that makes use of most of the defined symbols.

Otherwise the document looks great to me.

Stig