It's better.
On 19.01.2017 17:42, Susan Hares wrote:
Mirja:
Did moving these examples to an appendix work for you?
Sue Hares
-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 8:28 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [i2rs] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two high level comments (please note that I’m not a yang expert and if this
model is considered right by the vendor community that want to use it, I’m fine
with it):
1) I’m not sure about the usefulness of the flag attribute, given that’s a very
general reference to some kind of unspecified information (and it’s also not
used in the examples as far as I can see)
2) Why are the is-is and ospf models only given as examples instead of also
specifying them completely in this draft. These parts atually seem to me to be
the more interesting bits of work…
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
