"Susan Hares" <[email protected]> wrote: > Martin: > > Thank you for the comments on the Yang doctors. The discussion reference > was in the introductory material and not in the descriptions in the YANG > text. Do you also want additional comments in the introductory section?
No. The comment was just about the YANG module. You wrote: > > Earlier feedback (rtg-dir, ops-dir, yang-doctors) on YANG > > suggested taking out the lengthy descriptions regarding logic and > > history. If we are switching the rules for the YANG models, would > > you please update the requirements for the YANG models so that > > shepherds, rtg-dir, ops-dir, and yang-doctors can have rules for > > review clearly spelled out. My point is that I don't think we are changing the rules for the YANG modules, which this reply seemed to indicate. /martin > > Sue Hares > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with DISCUSS and > COMMENT) > > Hi, > > Just a quick comment on the YANG doctor's review. > > "Susan Hares" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Earlier feedback (rtg-dir, ops-dir, yang-doctors) on YANG suggested > > taking out the lengthy descriptions regarding logic and history. > > It is very common that the YANG doctor review ask for *more* details in the > descriptions. In general, we want the module to have as much explanatory > text as possible. So was the case for the YD review for this document as > well; the YD wrote "The descriptions in all YANG Modules are very > short/terse." That was for the -02 version, and even the -00 version did > not contain lengthy descriptions AFAICT. > > > /martin > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
