Hi Alvaro, Co-authors, et al, I went ahead and changed to “should” for the YANG deviations as well as fixing a couple typos and changing the draft short name from “isis-cfg” to “isis-yang”. The -40 version is posted. Thanks, Acee
From: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com> Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> Cc: "draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-...@ietf.org>, "lsr-cha...@ietf.org" <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-37: (with COMMENT) Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent-To: <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, Derek Yeung <de...@arrcus.com>, Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, Jeffrey Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> Resent-Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Hi Alvaro, From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:18 PM To: Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org>, Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com> Cc: "draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-...@ietf.org>, "lsr-cha...@ietf.org" <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-37: (with COMMENT) Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent-To: <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, Derek Yeung <de...@arrcus.com>, Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, Jeffrey Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> Resent-Date: Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:18 PM On September 26, 2019 at 1:37:47 AM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker (nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>) wrote: Acee: Hi! — Section 2.3 — In the last two paragraphs of the section, one uses “should” advertise and the other uses “SHOULD” advertise. They should either both be BCP 14 key words, or both not. In this case, instead of the change to “SHOULD” (which you made in -38), we need to go the other way: s/SHOULD/should This is from my AD review: - - - - ... 506 If an implementation does not support per level configuration for a 507 parameter modeled with per level configuration, the implementation 508 SHOULD advertise a deviation to announce the non-support of the 509 level-1 and level-2 containers. 511 Finally, if an implementation supports per level configuration but 512 does not support the level-1-2 configuration, it SHOULD also 513 advertise a deviation. [major] "SHOULD advertise a deviation" According to rfc7950: "Deviations MUST never be part of a published standard"; I realize that this document doesn't include one, but it Normatively recommends their use. s/SHOULD/should - - - - I missed in -36 the fact that only the first SHOULD was changed. You’d think I would have remembered that. I will make both “should” I the -40 revision. -39 simply updated Stephane’s contact info to avoid bounces during IESG review. Thanks, Acee Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
