Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10.txt

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:36:02 +0000

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-schema-mount-10.txt
Reviewer: Matthew Bocci
Review Date: 11 June 2018
IETF LC End Date: unknown
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

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

Comments:

The draft is clearly written and easy to understand. I have no significant concerns although there are a few minor editorial nits that I think should be addressed.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.

Nits:

I found the references to the mechanism as simply "schema mount" made the document harder to parse than it should be. For example
"The basic idea of schema mount is to label...". It would be more readable to always refer to the mechanism as "a schema mount" or "the schema mount"
as appropriate.

There are a few other places where the indefinite article is missing e.g. the definitions in section 2.1 would be
more readable if they started with 'a', thus: "schema: a collection of schema trees..."

Section 2.1 Glossary of new terms
"- Schema: collection of schema trees with a common root"
I am not sure that you can really say that 'schema' is a new term. Maybe this could be rephrased to say "the term schema is used in this document to refer to..."