Martin: You are correct, this is not a concern about the rules for the Yang module itself. Hence, my questions to Ignas about why he placed a DISCUSS based on "introduction material" that was not specified in any document.
Thank you for your comments, Susan Hares -----Original Message----- From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[email protected]] 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
