Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flex-algo-yang-08: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flex-algo-yang/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work done in this document. Some comments ### Section 3 Just doing my IESG evaluation of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-flex-algo-yang and reading that this common YANG module is indeed shared and does not "belong" to OSPF, so, all is good and my previous comment below can be ignoed. > About this IS-IS YANG module re-using a type specified in draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-flex-algo-yang. If common to IS-IS and OSPF, then why not having a common module ? (of course, it this is the *only* common thing, then my comment can be ignored) Should the unit be specified in all the bandwidth-related leaf nodes ? Unusual presentation with the YANG tree directly followed by the YANG module, why not ? ;-) _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
