Martin: I apologize if my response seem to indicate the descriptions in the YANG modules or the YANG module overall description. My response was intended to query if there were now rules on what needed to be in the introductory material (non-YANG) in the RFC prior to the YANG module.
AFAIK, the only formal definition for this portion of the YANG RFCs is regarding the Yang diagram RFC. Therefore, I was asking Ignas to provide clarity on his DISCUSS to determine references for his expectations for the introductory material. A DISCUSS should have some reference to a YANG web page, or an RFC or some written context to help the shepherd. As a shepherd unless I have a reference it is hard to handle conflicting reviews (shorten the introduction vs. add the introduction). If you know of such a web page or RFC, I would appreciate a reference. Thank you, Susan Hares -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 5:57 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) "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 _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
