John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-20: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your work on this spec. Thanks also to Kent Watsen for his hard work shepherding it. I have some comments below which I hope may be helpful. 1. Section 1, nit, s/In Appendix C describes/Appendix C describes/ (delete the "in") 2. Section 1.4: A YANG instance data set is created at a specific point of time. If the data changes afterwards, this is not represented in the instance data set anymore. The current values may be retrieved at run-time I think "anymore" should be cut, for several reasons, the most important of which is that it seems to be objectively wrong. The cut would be the minimal fix, but did you mean something more like this? "If the data changes afterwards, the instance data will no longer represent the current data, unless it is updated." 3. Section 2, nit, s/constrains MAY be violated/constraints MAY be violated/ 4. Section 2.1: I was amazed that the "external method" option, which is essentially the "simply don't bother" option, was acceptable to the WG and other reviewers. To my eye, the URI method option seems functionally just as good (it keeps the content of the file itself small) while providing a stronger (though still not very strong) assurance that the schema will actually be available. Was "external method" discussed in the WG? Or am I simply in the rough for even thinking it surprising? 5. Appendix C: I'm inclined to agree with the shepherd's recommendation to remove this entire section (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/5DfEi8swOmLEPykBpFICJK6398s/) since readability is problematic and it doesn't seem to add to the usability of the spec. Since it is, as it says, only a non-normative appendix I don't insist, but I strongly encourage you to consider trimming or rewriting it. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
