Hi Robert, I've adopted all your suggestion.
Thanks for the review! Chris. > On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:04 AM, Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewer: Robert Wilton > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I have reviewed this document as part of the YANG doctors directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. > These > comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of > the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included > in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should > treat these comments just like any other last call comments. > > I've already reviewed the previous revision of this document as part of WG LC, > and any significant comments have already been addressed. What remains are > minor nits, that would probably be spotted/addressed by the RFC editor, and I > leave it to the authors discretion as to whether/how they address these: > > 1. It may be helpful for the introduction to state that the module conforms to > NMDA (from YANG guidelines section 3.5). I.e. add the following text + > reference. > > The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network > Management Datastore Architecture defined in > RFC 8342. > > 2. Paragraph 4.1, perhaps "will be" => "is"? > > 3. Section 4.3, "removed with using" => "removed using" > > 4. The YANG module itself: > > 4i) NetMod => NETMOD (two places) > > 4ii) The RFC 2119 boilerplate should probably be updated to cover RFC 8174. > > 4iii) Line length is a bit long in places. I checked using pyang against 69 > chars and got this, so at least line 89 should be fixed (but the RFC editor > will also fix this): [email protected]:56: warning: line length > 72 exceeds 69 characters [email protected]:57: warning: line > length 71 exceeds 69 characters [email protected]:63: warning: > line length 71 exceeds 69 characters [email protected]:64: > warning: line length 71 exceeds 69 characters > [email protected]:86: warning: line length 72 exceeds 69 > characters [email protected]:89: warning: line length 86 > exceeds > 69 characters > > 4iv) Possibly add ", but they have no operational effect" to the end of the > description of masked-tag. Although, it is pretty obvious to me that they > would just be ignored. > > 5) Section 6. > - Suggest "It's" => "It is", "2" => "two", "3" => "three". > - Suggest "is classifying modules in only a logical manner" => "only > classifies modules in a logical manner" > > 6) Section 7.1. > - Since these are guidelines, I suggest "can" => "MAY". > > 7) Section 8.1. > - I note that this section uses "SHOULD", and section 3.4 just says reserved. > Should section 3.4 also use RFC2119 language to be aigned at all? >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
