Hi Acee, > On Aug 21, 2019, at 1:01 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alissa, > > On 8/21/19, 9:29 AM, "Alissa Cooper via Datatracker" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26: 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-ospf-yang/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Per the Gen-ART review, I think 2.3 may be a little clearer if it were to > say > "The field 'version' is used to indicate the OSPF LSA version and is > mandatory." > > This change has already been made in response to the Gen-ART review.
My specific suggestion was to include “LSA” after “OSPF” since that seemed to be the source of the confusion. Best, Alissa > > 2.3. OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 > > The data model defined herein supports both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. > > The field 'version' is used to indicate the OSPF version and is > mandatory. Based on the configured version, the data model varies to > accommodate the differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. > > Thanks, > Acee > > I did not review this entire document but I'm balloting based on the > Gen-ART > review. > > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
