Hi, Thank you for your review! Comments inline.
"Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this > draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or > routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG > review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is > to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about > the Routing Directorate, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, > it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other > IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them > through discussion or by updating the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10.txt > Reviewer: Matthew Bocci > Review Date: 11 June 2018 > IETF LC End Date: unknown > Intended Status: Standards Track > > Summary: > > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > should be considered prior to publication. > > Comments: > > The draft is clearly written and easy to understand. I have no > significant concerns although there are a few minor editorial nits > that I think should be addressed. > > > Major Issues: > > No major issues found. > > Minor Issues: > > No minor issues found. > > Nits: > > I found the references to the mechanism as simply "schema mount" made > the document harder to parse than it should be. For example > "The basic idea of schema mount is to label...". It would be more > readable to always refer to the mechanism as "a schema mount" or "the > schema mount" > as appropriate. A similar comment was made by the opsdir reviewer. Since the draft says in the Introduction: This document introduces a new mechanism, denoted as schema mount, that allows for mounting one data model [...] we have added "schema mount" to the terminology section: - schema mount: The mechanism to combine data models defined in this document. > There are a few other places where the indefinite article is missing > e.g. the definitions in section 2.1 would be > more readable if they started with 'a', thus: "schema: a collection of > schema trees..." Fixed. > Section 2.1 Glossary of new terms > "- Schema: collection of schema trees with a common root" > I am not sure that you can really say that 'schema' is a new > term. Maybe this could be rephrased to say "the term schema is used in > this document to refer to..." We have merged this section with the previous section, and instead added: The following additional terms are used within this document: [...] o schema: A collection of schema trees with a common root. (thus it is no longer labeled as being a "new term") /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
