Hello Esko, Thank you for your review and your comments! They do help us improve this document. Please find my answers below (prefixed with [IP]). Note that the diff after handing your comments and those of Juergen Schoenwaelder can be found at [1].
Best regards, Ivaylo [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-core-sid&url2=http://core-wg.github.io/yang-cbor/draft-ietf-core-sid-latest.txt On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:17 PM Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello CoRE, > > I did a quick review of the -sid-11 draft; it looks ready for publication.. > Some minor issues found : > > Reference to RFC 7120 early allocation procedure: the allocation policies > for the registries are all "Expert review". And the RFC 7120 early > allocation procedure is defined, to do early allocations. However RFC 7120 > mentions that this procedure only applies in case : > (Section 2) > a. The code points must be from a space designated as "RFC > Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action". Additionally, > requests for early assignment of code points from a > "Specification Required" registry are allowed if the > specification will be published as an RFC. > So at first sight it looks like the procedure is not applicable, taken > strictly. However IANA indicates ( > https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration) that "Expert review" is > part of "Specification Required" so it would apply still. But in RFC 8126 > this is not mentioned in the same manner - so it could confuse some readers > about whether it applies or not. Maybe some text could be added to state > why RFC 7120 process does apply to the "Expert review" policy, even though > "Expert review" is not listed under Section 2 point a. of RFC 7120. (Note > that early allocation by RFC 7120 only applies to "Expert review" > allocations for draft documents that aim to become RFC.) > [IP]: We are in the process of reformulating this. Section 6.3.3: table column 1 is very narrow and it breaks the entry point > integer number, which is confusing. Why not make this column wider by one > character? One of the last 2 columns can be made more narrow if needed. > [IP]: Fixed. Section 3: "RESCONF" -> RESTCONF > [IP]: Fixed. > Section 3: CoRECONF -> CORECONF > [IP]: Fixed. Section 3: "For example how this could be achieved, please refer to" > -> For examples on how this could be achieved, please refer to > [IP]: Fixed. Section 3: "For diagram of one" > -> For a diagram of one ... > [IP]: Fixed. Best regards > > Esko > > IoTconsultancy.nl | Email/Skype: [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: core <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 14:05 > To: core <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [core] π WG Last Call of CORECONF drafts: > draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12, -sid-11, -comi-09, -yang-library-01 > > It took us a long time to get the four CORECONF drafts in sync, > but now we are ready for WGLC. > > This starts a working group last call for > β draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12 > β draft-ietf-core-sid-11 > β draft-ietf-core-comi-09 > β draft-ietf-core-yang-library-01 > > ending on > > 24:00 UTC on Tuesday, March 31, 2020. > > (This includes some extra time for the IETF week and for cross-WG > coordination.) > > This WGLC is copied to the netmod WG mailing list; please do have a look > at these drafts as they are slated to become a part of the greater > YANG/NETCONF/RESTCONF family. We intend the discussion to be on the > CoRE mailing list, but if you find a fundamental issue with YANG or > RESTCONF, feel free to discuss that on netmod instead. > > Please start a new email thread for each major issue that will need > discussion and make sure the subject line includes the draft name and > some sort of name for the issue. (Minor issues such as typos can also > be sent to the authors.) > > If you read the draft and think it looks fine, please send a one line > email to the list or to the chairs letting us know that so we can get > a feel of how broad the review has been. > > (To reviewers and authors:) If you are aware of any patent claims that > might apply to systems that implement these drafts, please review BCP 78 > and BCP 79 and make any appropriate IPR declaration before the last-call > ends. If you are not sure whether you need to make a declaration or not, > please talk to the chairs and we will help. > > GrΓΌΓe, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > core mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core > _______________________________________________ > core mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
