Hi, Reshad,
Thanks a lot for the comments, the authors has made some updates which is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?doc_1=draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang&url_2=https://netmod-wg.github.io/schedule-yang/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang.txt, feel free to share your feedback. Please also see my reply below inline with [Qiufang]. -----Original Message----- From: Reshad Rahman via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 7:02 AM To: yang-doct...@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang....@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org Subject: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-03 Reviewer: Reshad Rahman Review result: Ready with Issues Thanks for addressing my review comments which were discussed at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/AO7wvBa0gJbC-Egt_UuZHKCML70 I believe there are a couple of issues remaining, however it should be easy to address/close them. Issues ====== For "leaf interval", the description mentions a default value but there is no default statement. [Qiufang] Right, but this is intentional. The authors had some discussion related to the default statement in the grouping, and we incline not to impact how the groupings would be reused, and give the consumers choice of deciding whether this should be a default or mandatory. For more context, you may find some internal discussion at https://github.com/netmod-wg/schedule-yang/pull/8. Make sense? I believe we need more mandatory statements, or default statement if appropriate, otherwise the behaviour is unknown. For example: [Qiufang] See my comment above, as the intention is to try not to define mandatory/default statements in the groupings, we would like to add more description to clarify cases where the node is unspecified. - In "container recurrence-first", should "start-time-utc" and "duration" be mandatory? [Qiufang] No, they are allowed to be unspecified. The following changes are made to the description statement of container "recurrence-first": OLD: description "Specifies the first instance of the recurrence." NEW: description "Specifies the first instance of the recurrence. If unspecified, the recurrence is considered to start from the date and time when the recurrence pattern is first satisfied."; - In "choice period-type", if no choice is made does that mean there is no end to the period? If so, please add that to the description. If not, add a mandatory statement. [Qiufang] Sure, the following changes are made to the description: OLD: description "Indicates the type of the time period. Two types are supported." NEW: description "Indicates the type of the time period. Two types are supported. If no choice is indicated, the period is considered to last forever or as a one-shot schedule."; Nit: the term "recurrence rule" is used a lot in the document, but it is not explained anywhere. In the terminology section, add a reference to 3.8.5.3 of RFC5545? [Qiufang] Good suggestion. The following is defined in the terminology section: Recurrence Rule: Refers to a rule or repeating pattern for recurring events. See also Section 3.8.5.3 of [RFC5545] for a comprehensive iCalendar recurrence rule specification. Regards, Reshad. Best Regards, Qiufang
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- netmod@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to netmod-le...@ietf.org
