Brian, thanks for your review. Martin, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Oct 21, 2019, at 3:37 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Brian Carpenter via Datatracker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> Gen-ART Last Call & telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04 >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your >> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04.txt >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review Date: 2019-10-20 >> IETF LC End Date: TBD >> IESG Telechat date: 2019-10-31 >> >> Summary: Ready with nits >> -------- >> >> Comments: >> --------- >> >> This was accidentally put on the IESG agenda without an IETF Last Call, >> so this review serves both purposes. >> >> The draft seems very clear and I have no technical comments. >> >> Nits: >> ----- >> >>> Updates: 8340 (if approved) >>> Intended status: Standards Track >> >> RFC 8340 is a BCP, so can this really be Standards Track? >> Shouldn't it also be BCP, extending BCP 215? It's tricky, >> because it also effectively extends RFC 8040, which is >> Standards Track rather than BCP. Sadly it doesn't seem that >> a document can be both BCP and Standards Track. > > Hmm, the main contribution in this document (the "structure" > extension), is not suitable as a BCP. It is really just section 3 > that updates 8340. I don't know to to resolve this, and will look at > the document shepard for guidance! > >> Also, this draft says: >> >>> The "yang-data" extension from [RFC8040] has been copied here, >>> renamed to "structure", and updated to be more flexible. >> >> That reads as if RFC 8040 is also updated, and it leaves the >> status of "yang-data" unclear. Is it now deprecated? Perhaps the >> sentence would be clearer like this: >> >> This document defines a new YANG extension statement called >> "structure", which is similar to but more flexible than the >> "yang-data" extension from [RFC8040]. > > > Thank you, this is better! > > > /martin > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
