What an efficient shepherd, you are, Med 😊 Thanks for your quick reply, a variation of your text at the bottom about http vs. https would be nice in section 5.3.1.1
Regards -éric From: iesg <[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2023 at 13:15 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-15: (with COMMENT) Hi Éric, Please see two comments inline. I trust the authors will follow-up shortly. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Envoyé : mercredi 25 octobre 2023 11:50 > À : The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > <[email protected]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Objet : Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-15: > (with COMMENT) > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-15: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > this introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-15 > > Thank you for the work put into this document. > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would > be > appreciated even if only for my own education). > > Special thanks to Mohamed Boucadair for the shepherd's detailed write- > up > including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended > status. > > Other thanks to Ted Lemon and Scott Rose, the DNS directorate > reviewers, please > consider this dns-dir review: > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata > tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Freview-ietf-alto-oam-yang-15-dnsdir-telechat- > lemon-2023-10- > 23%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C551ff96a7aa34552 > be4d08dbd53fbb1e%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C63833824 > 1913951549%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzI > iLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sDVtz%2Fc47Xrnna > PzeiiW8VRgvatJm1RSTBbBQfpvNDU%3D&reserved=0 > (authors should probably reply on the email thread) > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata > tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Freview-ietf-alto-oam-yang-14-dnsdir-telechat- > rose-2023-10- > 19%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C551ff96a7aa34552 > be4d08dbd53fbb1e%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C63833824 > 1913951549%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzI > iLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1hsPh1l4BO%2Bg6I > K33uNO1%2BI%2Foi6uOsyxESoDyT337BY%3D&reserved=0 > (and I have seen authors' reply) > > I hope that this review helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > # COMMENTS > > ## NMDA support > > I often see YANG RFC stating their support (or lack of) NMDA (RFC > 8342), is > there any reason why NMDA support is not stated in the text ? > [Med] Good catch. This statement is missing as per RFC8407. Created a PR for the authors at: https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/pull/98/files. > ## Section 3 (comments can be ignored) > > While it does not hurt, several acronyms are really well-known, hence > no need > to expand them. > > Is "O&M" really used in other documents ? First time that I see this > acronym. > > ## Section 5.1 > > As the module is prefixed by the ietf-alto namespace, strongly suggest > to use > another term than "alto" at the root and even more s/alto- > client/client/ > s/alto-server/server/ > > ## Section 5.3.1.1 > > As I am trusting the SEC ADs' reviews, I will not ballot a blocking > DISCUSS, > please remove all HTTP (as opposed to HTTPS) in the text and in the > data model > itself. Or is "http" used instead of "https" ? But, then why is there > a "tls" [Med] The WG had some cycles on this specific point (https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/issues/27). This http-listen is echoing what is in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server/: * The "transport" choice node enables either the HTTP or HTTPS transports to be configured, with each option enabled by a "feature" statement. The HTTP option is provided to support cases where a TLS-terminator is deployed in front of the RESTCONF- server. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
