Hi Paul, Thank you very much for the reply. We will fix those nits in next version. Some replies below.
Best Regards, Yan -----Original Message----- From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 11:27 PM To: Zhuangyan (Yan) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: General Area Review Team <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-07 On 4/1/18 11:09 PM, Zhuangyan (Yan) wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Thank you very much for your review and comments. > Some responses below. > > Best Regards, > > Yan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2018 1:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: General Area Review Team <[email protected]> > Subject: Gen-ART Telechat review of > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-07 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the > IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD > before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see > the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-07 > Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat > Review Date: 2018-03-31 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-03 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-04-05 > > Summary: > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be > fixed before publication. > > Disclaimer: > > I conducted this review without any knowledge of YANG modeling. So the sort > of review I can do is superficial. > > Issues: > > Major: 0 > Minor: 0 > Nits: 4 > > (1) NIT: > > In my opinion many of the normative references aren't actually > normative, and can/should be changed to informative references. In > particular the following all seem likely candidates: RFC5246 (TLS), > RFC6241 and RFC6242 (NETCONF), RFC8040 (RESTCONF), RFC8342 (NMDA), RFC8346. > There may be others. > [Yan] For RFC5246 (TLS), RFC6241, RFC6242 (NETCONF), RFC8040 (RESTCONF) and > RFC8342 (NMDA), they are building blocks for YANG module usage and > definition, hence referenced as normative. I get your point, but as best I can tell there is no normative dependency on any of them. They are all *possible* substrates for using this work, but none of them are required. But it is your call. [Yan] Thank you : ) we will follow relative RFCs to keep aligned. > (3) NIT: > > IdNits reports 3 errors and 7 warnings, regarding long lines, references that > are missing, unused, obsolete, and a downref. Please fix the errors and > review the warnings. > [Yan] I checked v-07 with idnits 2.15.01, there is no errors/warnings or nits > found...can you direct me to the tool you use? I'm sorry. I actually reviewed -08, even though my message said I reviewed -07. I looked at the HTMLized version: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08 and then cliced [Nits] at the top: https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08.txt [Yan] thanks a lot. We'll fix them in next version. Thanks, Paul _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
