Thanks for the review, Martin. Section 5.3 was updated based on the GENART review, but I see that we need to do a bit better to tie the IM to what is discussed in Section 5.3.1. I’ll raise a GH issue for this.
One thing we wanted to call attention to is that we’re recommending more documentation in the service-level YANG module itself that describes how one derives service-level status from device-level implementation. This is mentioned in Section 5.3.2. Are you generally okay with this? Joe From: Martin Björklund via Datatracker <[email protected]> Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 at 04:21 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [yang-doctors] draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-01 early Yangdoctors review Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis Title: Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in IETF Specifications Reviewer: Martin Björklund Review result: Ready with Nits Hi, This is my YANG doctors review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-01. This document contains general guidelines for operational considerations in IETF documents. From a YANG point of view, it doesn't contain any YANG models, but provides some guidelines on when and how to use YANG. I have just one question and it is regarding the recommendations for Information Models (IM). The draft has an implicit recommendation in section 5.3: Although this document recommends using English text (the official language for IETF specifications) to describe an Information Model, including a complementary YANG module helps translate abstract concepts into implementation-specific Data Models. It later says in 5.3.1: When defining an Information Model using YANG Data Structure Extensions [...] It is not clear to me what you mean here. In section 5.3 it seems you recommend including a Data Model YANG module (not an IM, since the IM is in english text). But then in 5.3.1 you mention a YANG module for the IM as well, but there is no other discussion about using YANG for the IM. Also, I think it would be clearer to have an explicit recommendation in section 5.3: This document recommends using English text... /martin _______________________________________________ yang-doctors mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
