Hi

This is my YANG-Doctor Early review of
draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-06. This draft one standard YANG module
and one example YANG module. They booth seem to be in good shape but
still have a few issues and nits.

Result: Ready with Issues


Summary:

This document defines a way to describe immutable nodes in YANG
datastores and a mechanism for clients to retrieve which nodes are
immutable.


General document comments:

References RFCs 6241 and 8526 for NETCONF but only RFC 8040 for
RESTCONF, which is good for normative references. Suggest to add
RFC 8527 as a normative reference for RESTCONF since it refines (states
to disregard) RFC 8040 Section 3.5.4 Default Handling for NMDA.


Please give an example of how the "with-immutability" query parameter is
encoded in a RESTCONF URI. I looked for how empty leafs are encoded in a
URI but couldn't find anything. I assume that your intention is
something like

    GET /restconf/data/ex-urp:user-groups?with-immutability

is "...?with-immutability=" also ok?


Appendix A.4 could be expanded by also including the request supplied to
the server for the output shown. Suggest one for NETCONF and one for
RESTCONF (could clear the point above).


Section 4.2.2 -> s/404 Bad Request/400 Bad Request/


I urge the authors to include examples for errors, e.g. when
configuration changes are supplied but rejected by the server.


YANG module comments:

ietf-immutable-annotation:

The YANG module validates with pyang --ietf and yanglint.


Add reference statement for RFC 7952 to the ietf-yang-metadata import.

The YANG module doesn't seem to import any definitions from RFC 6241,
remove this reference in the YANG module preamble in section 9.

Add references used in the YANG module in the preamble text in
Section 9, i.e. add RFCs 7952, 8342, and draft-ietf-netmod-system-config
(or use RFC YYYY).


Use the correct RFC-to-be placeholder, i.e. change RFC HHHH and rfcHHHH
to RFC XXXX and rfcXXXX respectively in the description.


example-user-group:

The YANG module validates with pyang and yanglint.


The leaf "access-right" is probably better named "access-level".


Suggest the following name changes for consistency and readability in
the example:

* list user-group -> group

* leaf user/user-name -> user/name


Nits:

s/proscriptive/prescriptive/

s/doument/document/

s/ip-address/IP address/

s/these leaves/these leafs/


--
Per