draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit: yang review

[shwethab]

There is quite a lot wrong with this I-D from the YANG point of view. I
am surprised that it passes YANG validation, as the data tracker
reports, but that is validation for you! Most of these comments derive
from YANG Guidelines RFC8407.

Tree diagram is now standardised as RFC8340 and is not normally regarded 
as CODE 

YANG version 1 was replaced in 2016 

Prefix ietf-pot-profile is cumbersome - 3-5 characters is more than 
enough for a prefix 

Contact needs Editors 

Copyright 2018 (feels about right:-) 

Revision reference must reference this I-D/RFC2be 

A grouping that is only used once increases size and complexity for no 
benefit but in this case pot-profile is imported by IPPM; worth a 
mention somewhere. 

List identifiers are conventionally plural. 

IANA considerations are mandatory - if the module is not registered with 
IANA there is no module 

Security Considerations for YANG are mandatory - YANG Guidelines points 
to the current text albeit trivial compared with those for POT:-). 

These two Considerations will pull in another half a dozen Mandatory 
references. 

Key Words is ood - see RFC8174 

When MTU is Maxiumum Transmission Unit, then it is a recognised 
abbreviation and does not need expanding. 

HMAC is Hashed ...in the RFC Editor list 

Abstract/Introduction should mention that there is a YANG module, that 
it conforms to NMDA and reference RFC7950.  IANA Considerations on the 
other hand should reference RFC6020. 

IPPM import this module so I copy that list. 

• Tom Petch