Early Review of draft-ietf-iotops-ol-00
review-ietf-iotops-ol-00-yangdoctors-early-liu-2025-10-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-iotops-ol-00
Requested revision 00 (document currently at 01)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2025-10-17
Requested 2025-10-02
Requested by Henk Birkholz
Authors Eliot Lear , Carsten Bormann
I-D last updated 2025-11-05 (Latest revision 2025-11-05)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -00 by Xufeng Liu (diff)
Comments 
The YANG module in this I-D is pretty concise and adds to a series of modules in the "MUD space".
Assignment Reviewer Xufeng Liu
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-iotops-ol by YANG Doctors Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/hPRmY_cB-lz22ehwLjVtEcNOdZs
Reviewed revision 00 (document currently at 01)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2025-10-18
review-ietf-iotops-ol-00-yangdoctors-early-liu-2025-10-18-00
This is a review of the YANG modules in draft-ietf-iotops-ol-00.txt.

1) The format of the contact statement in the YANG module is somewhat
corrupted. RFC 8407bis currently provides the following template:

  contact
    "WG Web:   <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
     WG List:  <mailto:your-wg-name@ietf.org>

     Editor:   your-name
               <mailto:your-email@example.com>";

2) Naming of the container “ol”
    Sec 4.3.1 in RFC 8407bis provides the following as a guideline for the
    naming convention:
“Identifiers SHOULD include complete words and/or well-known acronyms or
abbreviations”.  The name “ol” would be better spelled out.

3) Naming of the leaf-list “spdx-tags”
   Sec 4.3.1 in RFC 8407bis states that “List identifiers SHOULD be singular
   with the surrounding container name plural. Similarly, "leaf-list"
   identifiers SHOULD be singular”.

4) Grouping “owner-license-grouping”
    Sec 4.3.1 in RFC 8407bis states that “Identifiers SHOULD NOT carry any
    special semantics that identify data modeling properties”. The suffix
    “-grouping” seems unnecessary. Also, this grouping is used only once. Is
    there any reason to use this grouping instead of simply specifying the
    container in-line?

5) choice “license-type”
    This choice has two cases. Each of the two cases is a list. The module
    allows an empty list for each. Is this intentional? What does the
    configuration mean if an empty list is specified?

6) The format of Sec 7.3 seems to be corrupted

Thanks,
- Xufeng