Hi Qiufang, authors,
I am good with the changes made. I understand why default values can be
undesirable in groupings.
My only remaining comment/question is why keep mention of default value in the
description?
Regards,Reshad.
leaf interval {
type uint32;
description
"A positive integer representing at which intervals the
recurrence rule repeats. For example, within a 'daily'
recurrence rule, a value of '8' means every eight days.
The default value is '1', means every second for a
'secondly' recurrence rule, every minute for a 'minutely'
rule, and so on.";
}
On Friday, January 24, 2025 at 04:47:24 AM EST, maqiufang (A)
<maqiufa...@huawei.com> wrote:
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 athttps://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
