Hi Clyde,

Looking at your diff, I see that you aligned the Usage Example text and artwork 
by making the artwork use the IP address from the text, but you should've 
instead used the hostname in both locations.  Please see section 3.6 here: 

Also, I see that you moved the Editorial Note to Section 1.4 (along with a typo 
in the title, ooops).  This is fine, I guess, though I was thinking instead 
about something like a top-level "RFC Editor Considerations" near the end 
[hmmm, a budding BCP? ;)].  Actually, I wish you had explained that the text 
was not in the Abstract, but in a "<note>" element, and it was just a rendering 
issue.  It's actually common to use the <note> element for this purpose (sorry 
for not recognizing it before).  Please also either fix the typo or, better, 
move the section back to the <note> element.

Kent // shepherd

===== original message =====

Kent, Tom, Yaron, and Ron,

A new version of the draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model has been published that 
addresses your concerns.



On 2/20/18, 9:06 AM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" <netmod-boun...@ietf.org 
on behalf of kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:




    > Kent


    > You illustrate beautifully the problem I would like a solution to.


    > The current thinking AFAICT is that tree-diagrams

    > should be an Informative Reference.


    > Therefore, the RFC Editor will not hold publication until an RFC number

    > is assigned.


    > Therefore, a note asking the I-D reference to be updated to reflect the

    > assigned RFC number is null - the RFC can be published with the

    > reference as an i-d and not as an RFC which is what I expect the RFC

    > Editor to do.


    > QED



    Except I know that this draft will be stuck in MISREF state and 

    will in fact be assigned an RFC number by the time this draft is published.





    > Note that this is not the case of a Normative i-d reference being buried

    > in the YANG module and not being.noticed by the RFC Editor; that problem

    > I am content with.



    >Tom Petch










    > Please also address these issues when posting -21 to address Benoit's

    issues.  Please post -21 ASAP as Benoit has already placed this draft on

    the IESG telechat in a couple weeks.


    > Thanks,

    > Kent // shepherd



    > On 2/14/18, 8:18 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise"

    <netmod-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of

    bcla...@cisco.com<mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote:


    > Dear all,


    > - the draft is NMDA compliant, right? It should be mentioned.

    > Ex: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03, in the abstract and intro


    >    The YANG model in this document conforms to the Network Management


    >    Datastore Architecture defined in




    > - As mentioned in the writeup, [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]

    should be an informative reference, not normative.


    > - Editorial:

    > OLD:

    > This draft addresses the common leafs

    > NEW:

    > This document addresses the common leafs


    > Please publish a new version asap.

    > In the mean time, I'm sending this draft to IETF LC.


    > Regards, Benoit










    > _______________________________________________

    > netmod mailing list

    > netmod@ietf.org







    netmod mailing list




netmod mailing list

Reply via email to