2019/02/25 updates 1.remove global-static-entries and arp-probe nodes in the arp model 2.update the description text of gratuitous-arp and add references of rfc related
modification includes: 1.proxy arp extension
- 09/01/2018 Tom Petch
-
YANG module copyright is 2016 which will get fixed but makes me notice ....
-
Security Considerations is not the current template; should have Normative References to SSH and TLS
-
s5.1 has draft [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis]). which is now an RFC
-
IANA Considerations references RFC7950. As I learnt lately, RFC6020 is better here as all RFC7950 does is point you to RFC6020
"MAC address in the format of H-H-H, in which H is a hexadecimal number of 1 to 4 bits.";
If H has a maximum of 4 bits, then you have a 12 bit address, not quite the MAC I see these days! I wonder if it is better to leave this out and let readers refer to RFC6991.
version1 has addressed the following comments:
IETF draft for ARP YANG model
Comments of Tom Petch 1.08/02/2018 Another YANG I-D from the Routing Area;
-
Abstract contains a [Reference]
-
No reference for YANG Tree Diagrams
-
No mention of the current YANG 1.1 RFC
-
No YANG version statement in the module
-
No mention of NMDA in the body of the I-D (but it does appear in the YANG Module)
-
No references for the imported modules and the RFC in question do not appear in the I-D Normative References
-
YANG module references RFC8242 which does not appear in the I-D Normative References
-
RFC 6536 is obsolete
2.07/31/2018 This I-D
-
fails to mention whether or not it is NMDA compliant in the Abstract and Introduction
-
fails to use the current definitions of terminology from RFC8342
-
references the old version of RFC2119 key words
-
has no Note to the RFC Editor asking them to replace the YANG module dates with date of publication. I suggest a Note asking them to replace XXXX with the number assigned to this I-D at the start of the I-D rather than asking them to replace 'draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02 ' which, should this I-D be adopted, will be wrong
-
has no Copyright statement in the YANG module
-
lacks references for several imported modules.
-
starts Section 4 well with a good sentence but fails to mention most imports
-
has serious formatting problems with the text in the YANG module with lines being way too long for an RFC (it is probably not a coincidence that other I-Ds have had the same problem - the right options in pyang fix this AFAIK)
-
has no IANA Considerations; no IANA Considerations means that you are not producing a YANG module no matter what it looks like.
-
Security Considerations are much better than usual but lack detail of sensitive nodes
-
Tree diagrams has the right reference but then spoils it by including text about the symbols
-
has out of date references [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis] [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis] which belie the claimed date of June 28, 2018 for this I-D; 2018-01-27 looks more like it:-)
-
has arp as a Informative Reference - Normative I think.