Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-04-06
IETF LC End Date: 2010-04-09
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed 
standard. There are a few minor issues that might should be considered prior 
to publication.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:

-- Section 3, model namespace definition:

(Same comment for section 4)

Will the registered namespace really include "DRAFT-06"? Should this be 
replaced with the RFC number?

-- description for counter32: "A default statement should not be used for
       attributes with a type value of counter32."

Should that be a normative SHOULD NOT?

-- object-identifier description, 3rd paragraph:

Does this imply a normative requirement that one SHOULD NOT use this 
to model an SMIv2 OI? (and SHOULD instead use object-identifier-128)?

-- Section 4, domain-name, description, paragraph 2: "...systems that want to store host names in
       schema nodes using the domain-name type are recommended to
       adhere to this stricter standard to ensure interoperability."

should "recommended" be normative?

Nits/editorial comments:

-- Section 2, 1st paragraph:

Can you provide a reference for SMIv2 (I assume RFC 2578)? Also, please 
expand it on first mention.

-- zero-based-counter32 description, 2nd paragraph:

Plurality mismatch between "nodes" and "it". Suggest s/"Schema 
nodes"/"A Schema node"

-- date-and-time, pattern and description:

Which is the normative description for date-and-time? The ABNF in the 
description, or the pattern attribute? I assume the second, but fear 
the presence of ABNF will make others assume the first.


(Comment repeats for zero-based-counter64)

-- zero-based-counter32 description, 3rd paragraph:

ben: s/"wrap it"/"wrap, it"

(Comment repeats for zero-based-counter64)

-- section 5:

The namespaces do not match the text (see comments on the module namespace 
strings in sections 3 and 4)

-- section 9.2:

idnits complains about unreferenced entries in this section. I'm not sure 
what to do about it, or if it matters at all, since they are referenced 
from the model itself.