Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-23: 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.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated *especially* for the use of "input" and "output", i.e., I was about to ballot a DISCUSS but this does not fit the DISCUSS criteria), and some nits. Special thanks to Linda Dunbar for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus *but* it lacks the justification of the intended status. The IPR section of the shepherd's write-up is *incorrect* as it claims that only 2 IPR disclosures have been done while there are 5 in the data tracker. At least, the IETF Last Call has a reference to the five disclosures, so this did not cause any problem. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # DISCUSS (blocking) As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ## # COMMENTS (non blocking) ## IPR disclosure Should the shepherd's write-up be updated ? See above. ## NMDA I have often seen in abstracts and introductions sentences like `The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342.`Did the author consider using the same sentence ? ## Section 4.1 Should NSF names include platform or version ? I.e., a NSF name such as "firewall-example" sounds like really broad. ## Section 4.1.2 s/an IP address /one or several IP address(es) / ? ## Section 5.1.2.1 I find the use of 'input' for the writable part and 'output' for the read-only part confusing... Should "status" be used rather than "output", esp. for a network function. The "ip" cardinality is "?" while it should rather be "*". Redefining "nsf-specification" rather than importing another module with similar capabilities would be easier. Also, "model" is wide open and underspecified. ## Section 5.2 Having a leaf named "ip" being an union with "inet:domain-name" seems really weird. # NITS (non blocking / cosmetic) ## Section 1 s/It also describes the operations which SHOULD be performed/It also describes the operations that SHOULD be performed/ ? _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
